Share
240 Posts.
lightbulb Created with Sketch. 114
clock Created with Sketch. 22/02/20
21:57
Share
Originally posted by hottod:
↑
The main similarity I see between Novosorb BTM and Orthocell’s CelGro is that both are resorbable tissue repair scaffolds.The method of producing CelGro is said to involve mechanical removal of fat, a proprietary decellularisation process, dehydration and sterilisation by gamma irradiation.My understanding is that, compared with BTM, biologic products in general are relatively costly and slow to produce and incapable of surge production. They also require refrigeration/freezing and need preparation time in theatre prior to use and are more prone to infection. A further specific disadvantage of a porcine-derived product, as I see it, is its potential unsuitability for use in a significant number of patients, based on religious and ethical grounds. It is unclear to me the extent of Celgro’s competitive advantage over other collagen-based membranes which are already commercially available from more than 20 companies. Orthocell suggests that CelGro has the advantage of cell compatibility, strength, ease of use and high quality tissue repair and also reports that nerve repair using CelGro resulted in improvements in muscle power at 12 months that were comparable to what would normally be expected at 24 months with other methods. However, it isn’t clear which methods. Does Celgro achieve this result when compared with other collagen-based membranes?
Expand
Seems to me they are trying to reinvent the wheel with ANOTHER collagen based product. It is evident PNV is going to breakaway from this market by delving into synthetics due to the significant advantages they possess over biologicals.
(20min delay)