April 2010
A survey of 100 Orthopedic Surgeons
Deliverables: Survey Data Only
Price: $2500
Please contact Howard.Brick@medpanel.com to purchase
S1. What is your primary medical specialty?
ˇ Orthopedic surgery
ˇ Other, please specify _________ [TERMINATE]
S2. Are you currently board certified?
ˇ Yes
ˇ No [TERMINATE]
<Page Break>
S3. Approximately how many years have you been in practice post-training?
_________ years in practice [TERMINATE <2 or >30]
<Page Break>
S4. How many total hip replacement procedures do you perform in one year?
_________ hip replacements per year [TERMINATE <10]
S5. How many total knee replacement procedures do you perform in one year?
_________ knee replacements per year [TERMINATE <10]
terminate if sum of s4 +s5 < 50
<Page Break>
(STANDARD QUALIFY TEXT)
<Page Break>
section one: Knee Implant Questions
- Have volumes and the waiting list for knee surgeries in your practice returned to pre-recession (pre-2008) levels?
ˇ I never experienced a decline in volumes or in my waiting list for knee surgeries during the recession (2008-2009) (skip to Q3)
ˇ My volumes and waiting list for knee surgeries have returned to pre-recession (pre-2008) levels (skip to Q3)
ˇ My volumes and waiting list for knee surgeries have not yet returned to pre-recession (pre-2008) levels
<Page Break>
- When do you believe volumes and the waiting list for knee surgeries in your practice could return to pre-recession (pre-2008) levels?
ˇ By year-end 2010
ˇ By first half 2011
ˇ By year-end 2011
ˇ 2012+
<Page Break>
- Please estimate the current percentage of your total knee replacement procedures that utilize products from each of the following manufacturers. Please also estimate what you expect these percentages will be one year from now.
Please note your answers must sum to 100%.
[randomize rows, anchor “other”]
|
Manufacturer |
Percentage of Total Knee Replacement Procedures | |
|
|
Currently |
One Year from Now |
|
Biomet (i.e. Vanguard, ACG, Ascent, and Maxim lines) |
_______% |
_______% |
|
Depuy/J&J (i.e. LCS line) |
_______% |
_______% |
|
Smith & Nephew (i.e. Journey, Legion, Genesis, and Profix lines) |
_______% |
_______% |
|
Stryker (i.e. Triathlon, Scorpio, and Duracon lines) |
_______% |
_______% |
|
Wright Medical (i.e. Advance line) |
_______% |
_______% |
|
Zimmer (i.e. NexGen, Natural Knee, and Innex lines) |
_______% |
_______% |
|
Other, please specify: _________ |
_______% |
_______% |
|
Total |
MUST SUM TO 100% |
MUST SUM TO 100% |
<Page Break>
- Please estimate the current percentage of your partial knee revision procedures that utilize products from each of the following manufacturers. Please also estimate what you expect these percentages will be one year from now.
Please note your answers must sum to 100%.
[randomize rows, anchor “other”]
|
Manufacturer |
Percentage of Partial Knee Revision Procedures | |
|
|
Currently |
One Year from Now |
|
Biomet (i.e. Oxford Partial, Vanguard M, and Repicci lines) |
_______% |
_______% |
|
Depuy/J&J (i.e. Sigma Partial line) |
_______% |
_______% |
|
Smith & Nephew (i.e. Journey Uni and Accuris lines) |
_______% |
_______% |
|
Stryker (i.e. Triathlon PKR and |
_______% |
_______% |
|
Wright Medical (i.e. Advance Uni & Link lines) |
_______% |
_______% |
|
Zimmer (i.e. ZMH Unicompartmental and Miller-Galante Unicompartmental lines) |
_______% |
_______% |
|
Other, please specify: _________ |
_______% |
_______% |
|
Total |
MUST SUM TO 100% |
MUST SUM TO 100% |
<Page Break>
5. Please rate the importance of a manufacturer’s patient-specific knee instrument offering in your decision to use a particular manufacturer’s knee implant line over another manufacturer.
|
1 – Not at all important in my preferred choice of manufacturer |
2 |
3 |
4 – Somewhat important in my preferred choice of manufacturer |
5 |
6 |
7 – Very important in my preferred choice of manufacturer |
|
ˇ |
ˇ |
ˇ |
ˇ |
ˇ |
ˇ |
ˇ |
<Page Break>
- On a scale of 1-7, please rate your perception of the quality of each manufacturer’s patient specific instrument offering, with 1=not at all differentiated and 7=very differentiated.
[randomize rows]
|
Manufacturer |
1 – Not at all differentiated from other manufacturer’s patient-specific instrument offering |
2 |
3 |
4 – Somewhat differentiated from other manufacturer’s patient-specific instrument offering |
5 |
6 |
7 – Very differentiated from other manufacturer’s patient-specific instrument offering |
Not familiar with manufacturer’s products |
|
Biomet (Signature) |
ˇ |
ˇ |
ˇ |
ˇ |
ˇ |
ˇ |
ˇ |
ˇ |
|
Depuy/J&J (TruMatch) |
ˇ |
ˇ |
ˇ |
ˇ |
ˇ |
ˇ |
ˇ |
ˇ |
|
Smith & Nephew (Visionaire) |
ˇ |
ˇ |
ˇ |
ˇ |
ˇ |
ˇ |
ˇ |
ˇ |
|
Stryker (OtisMed) |
ˇ |
ˇ |
ˇ |
ˇ |
ˇ |
ˇ |
ˇ |
ˇ |
|
Wright Medical (Prophecy) |
ˇ |
ˇ |
ˇ |
ˇ |
ˇ |
ˇ |
ˇ |
ˇ |
|
Zimmer (Zimmer Patient Specific) |
ˇ |
ˇ |
ˇ |
ˇ |
ˇ |
ˇ |
ˇ |
ˇ |
<Page Break>
- This past November, Zimmer’s offering of patient specific instruments was approved by the FDA. How will Zimmer’s new patient specific offering impact your utilization of Zimmer knee products relative to other manufacturers?
ˇ I am not familiar with Zimmer’s patient specific instrument offering
ˇ I expect to increase my use of Zimmer knee implant products as a result of Zimmer having a new patient specific instrument offering
ˇ I do not expect to increase my use of Zimmer knee implant products as a result of Zimmer having a new patient specific instrument offering
<Page Break>
At the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS), Dr. Hany Bedair presented data regarding higher loosening and revision rates in the cobalt chromium version of Zimmer’s cruciate retaining cementless NexGen knee. The AAOS abstract noted “the cementless high-flex femoral component reviewed has a high incidence of failure with 36% being loose and 9.3% having had revision or impending revision for painful loosening.”
- How has this study influenced your opinion of the quality of Zimmer’s NexGen knee line?
ˇ The study has not impacted my opinion of the quality of Zimmer’s NexGen knee products
ˇ The study has impacted my opinion of the quality of Zimmer’s NexGen knee products so that I will use less Zimmer NexGen products from now on
ˇ The study has impacted my opinion of quality of Zimmer’s NexGen knee products but I will not use less Zimmer NexGen products from now on
<Page Break>
- On a scale of 1-7, please rate the likelihood of these new knee product offerings helping the specific manufacturer gain knee market share in your practice, with 1=Not at all likely to help the manufacturer gain market share and 7=Very likely to help the manufacturer gain market share.
[randomize rows]
|
Manufacturer |
1 – Not at all likely to help manufacturer gain share |
2 |
3 |
4 – May somewhat help manufacturer gain share |
5 |
6 |
7 – Very likely to help manufacturer gain share |
Not familiar with manufacturer’s products |
|
Zimmer patient specific instruments for knees (coming out now) |
ˇ |
ˇ |
ˇ |
ˇ |
ˇ |
ˇ |
ˇ |
ˇ |
|
Evolution MP total knee system (Wright Medical – received 510(k) approval in Mar 2010) |
ˇ |
ˇ |
ˇ |
ˇ |
ˇ |
ˇ |
ˇ |
ˇ |
|
Sigma High Performance Partial Knee (J&J – launched Feb 2009) |
ˇ |
ˇ |
ˇ |
ˇ |
ˇ |
ˇ |
ˇ |
ˇ |
|
Sigma CR150 High-Flex Knee (J&J – launched Feb 2009) |
ˇ |
ˇ |
ˇ |
ˇ |
ˇ |
ˇ |
ˇ |
ˇ |
|
Verilast technology for Legion knee (Smith & Nephew – recently received FDA approval to market as a “30-yr” knee) |
ˇ |
ˇ |
ˇ |
ˇ |
ˇ |
ˇ |
ˇ |
ˇ |
<Page Break>
Print Abstract
For additional information on this study or to purchase, please call:
|
Survey
Orthopedic Surgery |