This past August, the company announced the launch of a new TLIF device with commentary from user surgeons on how wonderful this product performed. There is no question that a large surface to bone contact area is beneficial with a generous graft reservoir, but what is the benefit of a titanium interbody device? One of TSB's sources made the best observation, why would anyone want to go backwards in developing new technology? If you were the patient and had a choice of bone, PEEK or a titanium interbody device what would you choose? TSB wants to know what our readers think of this product and the company?
Monday, October 19, 2009
Titan Spine: Are they Going to the Moon or Will They have a Rough Landing?
In 2007 Titan Spine launched its first product called the endoskeleton VBR. The design rationale behind the device was to provide surgeons' with a large graft window, x-ray visualization and proper stress transfer through the apophyseal ring. But TSB must ask was the design of this product truly innovative? To our knowledge, etching techniques have been used in various orthopedic and dental applications.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Titanium interbody is antiquated. Thus the reason they are paying such high percentage points. There is no question surface area and graft space are good, however, if this technology had great market potential, why hasn't Zimmer's trabecular metal interbody devices taken off? Good luck Titan, seems like just another surgeon pet project.
ReplyDelete