Neuroprosthetics Markets, 2028 - Market Could Reach $18 Billion

DUBLIN, August 16, 2017 /PRNewswire/ --

The "Neuroprosthetics 2018-2028: Technologies, Forecasts, Players" report has been added to Research and Markets' offering.

This report covers the competitive landscape for cochlear implants, retinal implants, and neuroprosthetics limbs. An analysis of patent timelines and major developments alongside the most recent technologies is provided for all major players in each respective category. Specifications charts are further provided, comparing major factors that should be considered when choosing or developing a cochlear or retinal implant. Additionally, neural probes, an essential component of any neuroprosthetic device, is also covered in detail providing a list of major developers and relevant applications in this area. Company profiles based from personal interviews with the major retinal implant companies currently or close to commercialization are included alongside one of the newest players in the cochlear implant space.

Neuroprosthetics is a growing field that has the potential to re-engineer a patient's lost sense of sight and sound. While some devices like cochlear implants have been in existence for decades, continued innovation in this area generates new devices today with increased frequency resolution and durability. Additionally, cochlear implants have served as the basis for the growing field of retinal implants.

Implanted into the retina to replace a patient's lost rod and cone cells, retinal implants transduce visual information (often gathered by a camera), to the remaining nerve cells in the back of the eye to be sent to and interpreted by the brain. Even still, there are retinal implants that function without cameras, harnessing the pathway of light as it naturally occurs within the eye. These groundbreaking devices confer an artificial sight that through rehabilitation, has the potential to partially restore patients' independence after years in darkness. Efforts to generate MEMS with long-term biocompatibility may further translate into neuroprosthetic, bionic limbs that are integrated with a patient's nervous system. Such devices could greatly enhance the overall quality of life for amputees and paraplegics alike.

The analyst provides qualitative analysis of considerations, trends, and future directions in the development of devices for each of these subsegments of neuroprosthetics. Price appears to be one overarching hurdle in potential future uptake of devices such as retinal implants and neuroprosthetic limbs, as they are roughly three to five times more costly than cochlear implants. Additionally, regulatory hurdles for approval and reimbursement also appear to be a common obstacle as companies work towards commercialization. Multiple companies however have continued to be formed, especially in the period surrounding the NIH's Brain Initiative in 2013.

The forecasts for the various industries are also provided, including individual 10-year forecasts for cochlear implants, retinal implants (RP only), retinal implants (RP + MD patients), and neuroprosthetic limbs. An overall 10-year forecast including all three neuroprosthetic segments is also included, and may be approximately $18B USD by 2028.

With nearly two decades' worth of experience in consulting and research, the analyst continues a burgeoning effort into the realm of the life sciences. An established database, a team of experts in the field of life sciences, and counsel by senior analysts, means new contacts and detailed company information in this arena are continuously being added.

Key Topics Covered:

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1. Neuroprosthetics defined
1.2. Neuroprosthetic implant examples
1.3. Neuroprosthetics- Why now?
1.4. Considerations and future directions for neural probes
1.5. Considerations, trends, and future directions for cochlear implants
1.6. Competitive patent interest in cochlear implants
1.7. Considerations, trends, and future directions for retinal implants
1.8. Competitive patent interest in retinal implants
1.9. Considerations for the future of neuroprosthetic limbs
1.10. Incumbent, new, and emerging markets summarized
1.11. Overall market drivers and constraints
1.12. Overall market forecast for neuroprosthetics by 2028

2. INTRODUCTION TO NEUROPROSTHETICS
2.1. Neuroprosthetics defined and the impact of sensory loss
2.2. The prevalence and expected rise of macular degeneration
2.3. Major players for neural probes and related devices
2.4. Outline of a cochlear implant
2.5. Cochlear implants
2.6. Major players for hearing restoration
2.7. Intracortical visual prosthetics
2.8. Major players for neuroprosthetic sight restoration
2.9. Who could benefit from neuroprosthetic limbs?
2.10. Developers of neuroprosthetic limbs
2.11. Types of neuroprosthetic limbs
2.12. Clinical trials interest in cochlear implants and retinal implants
2.13. Incumbent, new, and emerging markets summarized
2.14. Market drivers and constraints
2.15. Estimated 2017 market size and unit sales forecast for neuroprosthetics
2.16. IP interest in neuroprosthetics
2.17. NIH BRAIN Initiative

3. MARKET FORECASTS
3.1. Cochlear implant revenue by company
3.2. Market forecast for cochlear implants- Whole units and revenue by unit
3.3. Market forecast for cochlear implants- Revenue by new and upgraded component
3.4. The impact of new competitors- a historical perspective
3.5. Market forecast for cochlear implants- with potential disruption
3.6. The impact of new competitors- potential changes in the average price of cochlear implants
3.7. Market forecast for retinal implants- RP only
3.8. Regional sales distribution of retinal implants- the impact of reimbursement plans
3.9. Market potential for retinal implants- MD
3.10. Market forecast for retinal implants- RP + MD
3.11. Market forecast considerations for neuroprosthetic limbs
3.12. Overall market forecast for neuroprosthetics by 2028

4. COMPETITIVE INTERESTS IN PATENTS AND CLINICAL TRIALS
4.1. Competitive patent interest in cochlear implants
4.2. Changing cochlear implant price- the role of patents and new competitors
4.3. Competitive interest in clinical trials for cochlear implants
4.4. The potential impact of new competitors
4.5. Cochlear assigned patent timeline
4.6. Advanced Bionics assigned patent timeline
4.7. MED-EL assigned patent timeline
4.8. Oticon assigned patents timeline
4.9. Nurotron assigned patent timeline
4.10. Competitive patent interest in retinal implants
4.11. Second Sight assigned patent timeline
4.12. Pixium Vision assigned patent timeline
4.13. Competitive interest in clinical trials for retinal implants
4.14. Patent interest in neuroprosthetic limbs
4.15. Ossur assigned patents timeline

5. COMPETITIVE LANDSCAPE FOR NEURAL PROBES
5.1. A brief history of neural probes
5.2. How neural probes are typically made
5.3. Considerations for electrode material selection and insulating materials
5.4. Special considerations for neural probes and related devices
5.5. Research interest in neural probes
5.6. Patent interest in neural probes
5.7. NIH BRAIN Initiative
5.8. Intan technology
5.9. University of Utah Center for Neural Interfaces
5.10. Blackrock Microsystems technologies, partnership, and advances
5.11. NeuroNexus technologies, company and collaboration
5.12. CorTec technology
5.13. Ripple technologies
5.14. Cambridge NeuroTech technologies
5.15. Wise Srl technology
5.16. FHC technology
5.17. Neuralynx technology
5.18. Ad-Tech technologies
5.19. PMT Corporation electrodes
5.20. Atlas Neuro probe technology
5.21. Microprobes for Life Sciences technologies
5.22. Omnectics connectors for neuroscience
5.23. University of Texas probe research
5.24. SINAPSE- Singapore Institute for Neurotechnology
5.25. Considerations and future directions in neural probes

6. COMPETITIVE LANDSCAPE FOR COCHLEAR IMPLANTS
6.1. Major technological developments in cochlear implants
6.2. Changing cochlear implant price over time
6.3. Research interest in cochlear implants
6.4. Patent interest in cochlear implants
6.5. Competitive patent interest in cochlear implants
6.6. Special considerations for cochlear implants
6.7. Cochlear Ltd. Technologies
6.8. Advanced Bionics technologies
6.9. MED-EL technologies
6.10. Oticon technologies
6.11. Nurotron technologies
6.12. Trends and potential future directions in cochlear implants
6.13. Specification comparison- Processors & internal implants

7. COMPETITIVE LANDSCAPE FOR RETINAL IMPLANTS
7.1. A brief history of neuroprosthetics for vision restoration
7.2. Special considerations for vision neuroprosthetics
7.3. Research interest for retinal implants
7.4. Patent interest in retinal implants
7.5. Competitive patent interest timeline
7.6. Second Sight technologies
7.7. Pixium Vision retinal implant technologies
7.8. Retina Implant AG Alpha IMS and AMS technology
7.9. Nidek Co. Ltd. retinal implant technology
7.10. Optibionics retinal implant technology
7.11. Nano Retina technology
7.12. Bionic Vision Technologies development
7.13. Nanovision Biosciences technology
7.14. Bionic Eye Technologies, Inc. technology
7.15. Monash Vision Group technology
7.16. Illinois Institute of Technology's Intracortical Visual Prosthesis (ICVP)
7.17. Natcore Technology's retinal implant technology
7.18. LambdaVision protein-based retinal implant
7.19. VisionCare's implantable miniature telescope
7.20. Retinal implant specification comparison
7.21. Trends and potential future directions for neuroprosthetic vision technology

8. COMPETITIVE LANDSCAPE FOR NEUROPROSTHETIC LIMBS
8.1. A brief history of prosthetic limbs
8.2. Research interest in neuroprosthetic limbs
8.3. Patent interest in neuroprosthetic limbs
8.4. Special considerations for neuroprosthetic limbs
8.5. SensArs technology
8.6. Ossur technology
8.7. DARPA programs
8.8. Mobius Bionics technology
8.9. Case Western Reserve University and the Functional Neural Interface Lab
8.10. Biomechatronics at MIT Media Lab
8.11. The University of Utah and Blackrock Microsystems
8.12. Ripple technology
8.13. Paradromics technology
8.14. CorTec technology
8.15. Synchron technology
8.16. UMC Utrecht and their Utrecht Neuroprosthesis technology
8.17. BrainGate technology
8.18. Andersen Lab at Caltech
8.19. Schwartz Motorlab at the University of Pittsburgh
8.20. The University of Pittsburgh with DARPA
8.21. Medtronic's spinal cord stimulation technology
8.22. A consideration for the future of neuroprosthetic limbs

For more information about this report visit https://www.researchandmarkets.com/research/d7vgvn/neuroprosthetics

Media Contact:

Laura Wood, Senior Manager
[e-mail]

For E.S.T Office Hours Call [phone]
For U.S./CAN Toll Free Call [phone]
For GMT Office Hours Call [phone]

U.S. Fax: [phone]
Fax (outside U.S.): [phone]