| 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 |
