Polynovo Channel 7, page-28

Firstly, great to see PNV getting good marketing exposure.

I have been involved with Avita as a consultant engineer in biomedical product development about 8 years ago and have eyed it off as a potential investment since. The lack of sales traction has deterred me though.

I have not been involved with PNV except as a recent investor.

Both products overlap in the space of skin cell regeneration and Recell has had a hard road as keepsmiling has noted.
There are a couple of key differentiators which give BTM an advantage over Recell for full depth and large area skin repair in my (informed) opinion..
1. The speed and ease of application for full depth repair of skin that does not require immediate donor skin. This is a huge advantage as it creates a protective matrix for exposed subcutaneous areas and reduces infection likelihood dramatically without needing to have the patient in surgery while donor skin is prepared at the acute stage of the injury.
2. The quality of the healed dermis seems to be excellent with respect to flexibility and range of movement and matches the original functionality of the tissue to a greater extent.

The main drawback of BTM in my view compared to ReCell is the need for standard split thickness grafting as a follow-up procedure. That grafting is often from larger donor sites elsewhere on the body as full thickness burns often coincide with significant areas of burn damage locally. The additional surgery and grafting is still likely to be quite onerous and long. ReCell can utilize small areas of healthy dermis that may remain in local areas to repopulate the wound with similar pigment, hair folicle and thickness cells giving a better final cosmetic effect. The potential to use both methods in sequence for best effects is an obvious one in my view.

As noted by posters above, BTM has applications in other areas of body repair besides skin and this is also a significant commercial advantage. It was one of the reasons I decided to invest in PNV. Multiple applications from one technology source is always a healthy sign for growth.

I think it is also wise to remember that biomedical products are notoriously difficult to get through regulation and then become accepted best practice. The medical community is rightly cautious and slower to adopt innovation than most other markets.

GLTAH and feel free to be skeptical of my opinion as you DYOR.