List of Figures |
Figure 1‑1: Gynecological Device Market Share Ranking by Segment, U.S., 2022 (1 of 2) | 5 |
Figure 1‑2: Gynecological Device Market Share Ranking by Segment, U.S., 2022 (2 of 2) | 5 |
Figure 1‑3: Companies Researched in This Report (1 of 2) | 6 |
Figure 1‑4: Companies Researched in This Report (2 of 2) | 7 |
Figure 1‑5: Factors Impacting the Gynecological Device Market by Segment, U.S. (1 of 2) | 8 |
Figure 1‑6: Factors Impacting the Gynecological Device Market by Segment, U.S. (2 of 2) | 9 |
Figure 1‑7: Recent Events in the Gynecological Device Market, U.S., 2019 – 2023 (1 of 2) | 10 |
Figure 1‑8: Recent Events in the Gynecological Device Market, U.S., 2019 – 2023 (2 of 2) | 11 |
Figure 1‑9: Gynecological Device Procedures Covered (1 of 2) | 12 |
Figure 1‑10: Gynecological Device Procedures Covered (2 of 2) | 13 |
Figure 1‑11: Procedure Codes Investigated | 14 |
Figure 1‑12: Gynecological Device Markets Covered (1 of 2) | 15 |
Figure 1‑13: Gynecological Device Markets Covered (2 of 2) | 16 |
Figure 1‑14: Key Report Updates | 17 |
Figure 1‑15: Version History | 18 |
Figure 2‑1: Gynecological Market by Segment, Best Case Scenario, U.S., 2019 – 2029 (US$M) (1 of 2) | 35 |
Figure 2‑2: Gynecological Market by Segment, Best Case Scenario, U.S., 2019 – 2029 (US$M) (2 of 2) | 36 |
Figure 2‑3: Gynecological Market by Segment, Base Case Scenario, U.S., 2019 – 2029 (US$M) (1 of 2) | 37 |
Figure 2‑4: Gynecological Market by Segment, Base Case Scenario, U.S., 2019 – 2029 (US$M) (2 of 2) | 38 |
Figure 2‑5: Gynecological Market by Segment, Worst Case Scenario, U.S., 2019 – 2029 (US$M) (1 of 2) | 39 |
Figure 2‑6: Gynecological Market by Segment, Worst Case Scenario, U.S., 2019 – 2029 (US$M) (2 of 2) | 40 |
Figure 3‑1: Gynecological Disease Overview | 44 |
Figure 3‑2: ART Procedure Availability Overview | 48 |
Figure 3‑3: Female Sterilization Estimation | 58 |
Figure 4‑1: Assisted Reproduction Technology Device by Company (1 of 2) | 61 |
Figure 4‑2: Assisted Reproduction Technology Device by Company (2 of 2) | 62 |
Figure 4‑3: Global Endometrial Ablation Market by Company | 63 |
Figure 4‑4: Uterine Fibroid Embolization Device Market by Company | 64 |
Figure 4‑5: Gynecological Endoscope Market by Company (1 of 2) | 65 |
Figure 4‑6: Gynecological Endoscope Market by Company (2 of 2) | 66 |
Figure 4‑7: Gynecological Resection Electrode Market by Company | 68 |
Figure 4‑8: Morcellator Market by Company | 70 |
Figure 4‑9: Pelvic Floor Electrical Stimulation Device Market by Company | 72 |
Figure 4‑10: Fluid Management Device Market by Company | 73 |
Figure 4‑11: Pelvic Organ Prolapse Repair Device Market by Company | 74 |
Figure 4‑12: HSG Catheter Market by Company | 76 |
Figure 4‑13: Uterine Manipulator Market by Company | 77 |
Figure 4‑14: Class 2 Device Recall BIOPSY MEDIUM | 78 |
Figure 4‑15: Class 2 Device Recall LifeGlobal Fast Freeze Thawing Kit | 78 |
Figure 4‑16: Class 2 Device Recall Vitrification Freeze Kit | 78 |
Figure 4‑17: Class 2 Device Recall MediCult Vitrification Cooling Media | 79 |
Figure 4‑18: Class 3 Device Recall | 79 |
Figure 4‑19: Class 2 Device Recall Guardia Access Nano Embryo Transfer Catheter | 79 |
Figure 4‑20: Class 2 Device Recall Embryo Transfer Catheters/Sets | 79 |
Figure 4‑21: Class 2 Device Recall Advanced Endosee Cannula | 80 |
Figure 4‑22: Class 2 Device Recall HF Resection Electrodes | 81 |
Figure 4‑23: Class 2 Device Recall Covidien TruClear Hysteroscopic Tissue Removal System | 82 |
Figure 4‑24: Class 2 Device Recall PneumoLiner | 82 |
Figure 4‑25: Class 2 Device Recall HysteroLux" Fluid Management System | 83 |
Figure 4‑26: Class 2 Device Recall Aquilex Fluid Control System Component: Bag Deflector | 83 |
Figure 4‑27: Class 2 Device Recall Colpassist Vaginal Positioning Device | 84 |
Figure 4‑28: Class 2 Device Recall Upsylon YMesh Kit with Colpassist Vaginal Positioning Device | 84 |
Figure 4‑29: Class 2 Device Recall VERITAS Collagen Matrix | 84 |
Figure 4‑30: Class 2 Device Recall Uphold Vaginal Support System | 84 |
Figure 4‑31: Class 2 Device Recall Posterior LITE w/ Capio SLIM | 85 |
Figure 4‑32: Class 2 Device Recall PFR Kit Pinnacle | 85 |
Figure 4‑33: Class 2 Device Recall McKesson | 86 |
Figure 4‑34: Class 2 Device Recall Cannula, Manipulator/Injector, Uterine | 87 |
Figure 4‑35: Class 2 Device Recall Advincula Delineator | 87 |
Figure 4‑36: The Impact of Past Coronavirus Disease 19 (COVID-19) Infection on the Live Birth Rates of Frozen Embryo Transfer Cycles | 89 |
Figure 4‑37: Impact of pH Values of the Embryo Culture Medium on Success of In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) (ACIDOFIV) | 89 |
Figure 4‑38: Assessment of Embryo Viability and Re-expansion After Thawing in Blastocyst Stage Embryos | 89 |
Figure 4‑39: Heated and Non Heated Ovarian Aspiration Needle Protocol | 90 |
Figure 4‑40: Fresh Vs Frozen Surgical Sperm in IVF | 90 |
Figure 4‑41: Comparing Two Types of Needle for Oocytes Retrieval (NEEDLE) | 90 |
Figure 4‑42: Comparison of Two Embryo Transfer Catheters in Patients Undergoing in Vitro Fertilization and Embryo Transfer | 91 |
Figure 4‑43: Male Fertility and Sperm Cryopreservation | 91 |
Figure 4‑44: Embryo Transfer with Self-spent Culture Medium | 91 |
Figure 4‑45: EmbryoGlue as an Embryo Transfer Medium | 92 |
Figure 4‑46: Influence of Post-thaw Embryo Culture Interval on Assisted Reproduction Success Rates | 92 |
Figure 4‑47: NovaSure Study: Endometrial Ablation in Women with Heavy Menstrual Bleeding (RAMBOS) | 93 |
Figure 4‑48: Pregnancy Outcome Following Global Fibroid Ablation Using the Acessa™ System | 93 |
Figure 4‑49: Spherical Gelfoam Versus Tri-acryl Microsphere for Uterine Artery Embolization for Symptomatic Fibroids | 94 |
Figure 4‑50: UA Versus UAE in Treatment of Fibroids | 94 |
Figure 4‑51: Satisfaction of Patients with Trans-Arterial Radial Access: Quality of Life in Uterine Fibroid Embolization Trial (SPARQLE) | 95 |
Figure 4‑52: A Prospective Study to Evaluate the Clinical Performance and Safety of the SIRIUS Endoscope System in Laparoscopic Gynecological Surgery | 96 |
Figure 4‑53: Safety and Efficacy of Using PK Morcellator with Pneumoliner Containment Hysterectomy | 97 |
Figure 4‑54: Treatment of Missed Miscarriage with TRUCLEAR Tissue Removal System, a Feasibility Study | 97 |
Figure 4‑55: The Hysteroscopic Morcellator (HM) | 97 |
Figure 4‑56: Morcellator Versus Resectoscope in the Treatment of Uterine Polyps by Hysteroscopy (RESMO) | 98 |
Figure 4‑57: A Randomized Controlled Trial of Electrical Stimulation to Treat Pelvic Floor Disorder | 99 |
Figure 4‑58: A Study of Fractional Carbon Dioxide Laser Treatment for Female Stress Urinary Incontinence | 99 |
Figure 4‑59: Evaluation of the Safety and Efficacy of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Acupulse Laser Treatment on Urinary Stress Incontinence | 99 |
Figure 4‑60: the Effect of a New Type of Pelvic Floor Rehabilitation Device PHENIX U4+ on the Treatment of Urinary Incontinence | 100 |
Figure 4‑61: Electrical Stimulation in Women with Pelvic Organ Prolapse | 100 |
Figure 4‑62: Carbon Dioxide Acupulse Laser Treatment Versus Sham Treatment and Stress Urinary Incontinence Symptoms | 100 |
Figure 4‑63: Effect of External Electrical Stimulation and Pelvic Floor Muscle Training | 101 |
Figure 4‑64: Comparison of the Efficacy of Sacrocolpopexy, the Amreich-Richter Procedure and Transvaginal Mesh (SAME) | 102 |
Figure 4‑65: Prospective Long-term Evaluation of the Efficacy and Safety of Calistar S for Transvaginal Pelvic Organ Prolapse Repair (CASPO) | 102 |
Figure 4‑66: SCP vs HUSLS for Pelvic Organ Prolapse Repair | 102 |
Figure 4‑67: Evaluation of Safety and Efficacy of the Apyx™ Device for the Repair of Pelvic Organ Prolapse (POP) | 103 |
Figure 4‑68: Restorelle® Mesh Versus Native Tissue Repair for Prolapse | 103 |
Figure 4‑69: Prospective Analysis of Restorelle in the Treatment of Uterine Prolapse | 103 |
Figure 4‑70: Analysis of Procedural Times Using Colpassist for Robotic-Assisted Sacrocolpopexy; a Randomized Controlled Trial (ACRAS) | 104 |
Figure 4‑71: Uterine Manipulator Versus no Uterine Manipulator in Endometrial Cancer Trial (MANEC) | 105 |
Figure 4‑72: Uterine Manipulator in Endometrial Cancer Surgery: Pro MUCEI Study (proMUCEI) | 105 |
Figure 4‑73: Pilot Trial of the Robotic Uterine Manipulator | 105 |
Figure 4‑74: Trial of YUMI Uterine Manipulator | 106 |
Figure 5‑1: Gynecological Market by Segment, U.S., 2019 – 2029 (US$M) (1 of 2) | 110 |
Figure 5‑2: Gynecological Market by Segment, U.S., 2019 – 2029 (US$M) (2 of 2) | 111 |
Figure 5‑3: Leading Competitors, Gynecological Device Market, U.S., 2022 (1 of 2) | 123 |
Figure 5‑4: Leading Competitors, Gynecological Device Market, U.S., 2022 (2 of 2) | 124 |
Figure 5‑5: SWOT Analysis, Boston Scientific | 139 |
Figure 5‑6: SWOT Analysis, Coloplast | 140 |
Figure 5‑7: SWOT Analysis, Cooper Surgical | 141 |
Figure 5‑8: SWOT Analysis, Hologic | 142 |
Figure 5‑9: SWOT Analysis, Laborie Medical | 143 |
Figure 5‑10: SWOT Analysis, Medtronic | 144 |
Figure 5‑11: SWOT Analysis, Merit Medical Systems | 145 |
Figure 5‑12: SWOT Analysis, Minerva Surgical | 146 |
Figure 5‑13: SWOT Analysis, Olympus | 147 |
Figure 5‑14: SWOT Analysis, Richard Wolf | 148 |
Figure 6‑1: Ovarian Cancer Incidence, U.S., 2019 – 2029 | 150 |
Figure 6‑2: Pelvic Screens, U.S., 2019 – 2029 | 151 |
Figure 6‑3: Procedure Codes Investigated | 152 |
Figure 6‑4: Gynecological Procedures by Type, U.S., 2019 – 2029 (1 of 2) | 154 |
Figure 6‑5: Gynecological Procedures by Type, U.S., 2019 – 2029 (2 of 2) | 155 |
Figure 6‑6: Fallopian Tube Procedures, U.S., 2019 – 2029 | 157 |
Figure 6‑7: Assisted Reproduction Technology Procedures by Type, U.S., 2019 – 2029 | 158 |
Figure 6‑8: Cervical Repair and Biopsy Procedures, U.S., 2019 – 2029 | 159 |
Figure 6‑9: Global Endometrial Ablation Procedures by Modality, U.S., 2019 – 2029 | 161 |
Figure 6‑10: Uterine Fibroid Embolization Procedures by Type, U.S., 2019 – 2029 | 162 |
Figure 6‑11: Gynecological Endoscopy Procedures, U.S., 2019 – 2029 | 164 |
Figure 6‑12: Morcellation Procedures by Type, U.S., 2019 – 2029 | 166 |
Figure 6‑13: Vaginal Procedures, U.S., 2019 – 2029 | 167 |
Figure 6‑14: Pelvic Organ Prolapse Procedures by Type, U.S., 2019 – 2029 | 169 |
Figure 6‑15: HSG Catheter Procedures by Type, U.S., 2019 – 2029 | 170 |
Figure 6‑16: Myomectomy Procedures, U.S., 2019 – 2029 | 171 |
Figure 6‑17: Hysterectomy Procedures by Type, U.S., 2019 – 2029 | 173 |
Figure 6‑18: Hysterectomy Procedures by Approach, U.S., 2019 – 2029 | 175 |
Figure 7‑1: Assisted Reproduction Technology Device Market by Segment, U.S., 2019 – 2029 (US$M) | 179 |
Figure 7‑2: Oocyte Retrieval Needle Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 | 181 |
Figure 7‑3: Micropipette Market by Segment, U.S., 2019 – 2029 (US$M) | 182 |
Figure 7‑4: Micropipette Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 | 183 |
Figure 7‑5: Flexible Pipette Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 | 184 |
Figure 7‑6: ICSI Pipette Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 | 185 |
Figure 7‑7: Embryo Transfer Catheter Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 | 186 |
Figure 7‑8: Reproduction Media Market by Segment, U.S., 2019 – 2029 (US$M) | 188 |
Figure 7‑9: Reproduction Media Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 | 189 |
Figure 7‑10: Culture Media Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 | 190 |
Figure 7‑11: Sperm Preparation Media Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 | 191 |
Figure 7‑12: Manipulation Media Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 | 192 |
Figure 7‑13: Freeze/Thaw Media Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 | 193 |
Figure 7‑14: Leading Competitors, Assisted Reproduction Technology Device Market, U.S., 2022 | 197 |
Figure 8‑1: Global Endometrial Ablation Market by Segment, U.S., 2019 – 2029 (US$M) | 202 |
Figure 8‑2: Total Global Endometrial Ablation Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 | 204 |
Figure 8‑3: Thermal Ablation Device Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 | 205 |
Figure 8‑4: Hydrothermal Ablation Device Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 | 206 |
Figure 8‑5: Radiofrequency Ablation Device Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 | 207 |
Figure 8‑6: Cryoablation Device Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 | 208 |
Figure 8‑7: Leading Competitors, Global Endometrial Ablation Market, U.S., 2022 | 212 |
Figure 9‑1: Uterine Fibroid Embolization Device Market by Segment, U.S., 2019 – 2029 (US$M) | 217 |
Figure 9‑2: Microsphere Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 | 219 |
Figure 9‑3: PVA Particle Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 | 220 |
Figure 9‑4: Leading Competitors, Uterine Fibroid Embolization Device Market, U.S., 2022 | 224 |
Figure 10‑1: Gynecological Endoscope Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 (US$M) | 229 |
Figure 10‑2: Total Hysteroscope Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 | 232 |
Figure 10‑3: Total Reusable Hysteroscope Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 | 233 |
Figure 10‑4: Reusable Rigid Hysteroscope Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 | 234 |
Figure 10‑5: Reusable Flexible Hysteroscope Market by Segment, U.S., 2019 – 2029 | 235 |
Figure 10‑6: Total Reusable Flexible Hysteroscope Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 | 236 |
Figure 10‑7: Video Flexible Hysteroscope Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 | 237 |
Figure 10‑8: Fiber Flexible Hysteroscope Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 | 238 |
Figure 10‑9: Disposable Hysteroscope Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 | 239 |
Figure 10‑10: Total Colposcope Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 | 240 |
Figure 10‑11: Colposcope Market by Segment, U.S., 2019 – 2029 (US$M) | 241 |
Figure 10‑12: Video Colposcope Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 | 242 |
Figure 10‑13: Non-Video Colposcope Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 | 243 |
Figure 10‑14: Resectoscope Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 | 244 |
Figure 10‑15: Leading Competitors, Gynecological Endoscope Market, U.S., 2022 | 252 |
Figure 11‑1: Gynecological Electrosurgery Device Market by Segment, U.S., 2019 – 2029 (US$M) | 256 |
Figure 11‑2: Monopolar Loop Electrode Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 | 258 |
Figure 11‑3: Bipolar Loop Electrode Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 | 259 |
Figure 11‑4: Leading Competitors, Gynecological Resection Device Market, U.S., 2022 | 263 |
Figure 12‑1: Morcellator Market by Segment, U.S., 2019 – 2029 (US$M) | 267 |
Figure 12‑2: Laparoscopic Morcellator Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 | 270 |
Figure 12‑3: Hysteroscopic Morcellator Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 | 272 |
Figure 12‑4: Leading Competitors, Morcellator Market, U.S., 2022 | 276 |
Figure 13‑1: Pelvic Floor Electrical Stimulation Device Market by Segment, U.S., 2019 – 2029 (US$M) | 281 |
Figure 13‑2: Home-Based PFES Device Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 | 284 |
Figure 13‑3: Office-Based PFES Device Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 | 285 |
Figure 13‑4: Leading Competitors, Pelvic Floor Electrical Stimulation Device Market, U.S., 2022 | 290 |
Figure 14‑1: Fluid Management Device Market by Segment, U.S., 2019 – 2029 (US$M) | 294 |
Figure 14‑2: Fluid Management Equipment Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 | 296 |
Figure 14‑3: Fluid Management Tubing Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 | 297 |
Figure 14‑4: Leading Competitors, Fluid Management Device Market, U.S., 2022 | 301 |
Figure 15‑1: Pelvic Organ Prolapse Repair Device Market by Segment, U.S., 2019 – 2029 (US$M) | 306 |
Figure 15‑2: Sacrocolpopexy Mesh Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 | 309 |
Figure 15‑3: Leading Competitors, Pelvic Organ Prolapse Repair Device Market, U.S., 2022 | 313 |
Figure 16‑1: HSG Catheter Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 | 317 |
Figure 16‑2: Leading Competitors, HSG Catheter Market, U.S., 2022 | 322 |
Figure 17‑1: Uterine Manipulator Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 | 325 |
Figure 17‑2: Leading Competitors, Uterine Manipulator Market, U.S., 2022 | 329 |