| Figure 1‑1: Laparoscopic Device Market Share Ranking by Segment, U.S., 2022 (1 of 2) |
6 |
| Figure 1‑2: Laparoscopic Device Market Share Ranking by Segment, U.S., 2022 (2 of 2) |
6 |
| Figure 1‑3: Companies Researched in This Report |
7 |
| Figure 1‑4: Factors Impacting the Laparoscopic Device Market by Segment, U.S. (1 of 2) |
8 |
| Figure 1‑5: Factors Impacting the Laparoscopic Device Market by Segment, U.S. (2 of 2) |
9 |
| Figure 1‑6: Recent Events in the Laparoscopic Device Market, U.S., 2020 – 2022 |
10 |
| Figure 1‑7: Laparoscopic Device Procedures Covered (1 of 2) |
11 |
| Figure 1‑8: Laparoscopic Device Procedures Covered (2 of 2) |
12 |
| Figure 1‑9: Procedure Codes Investigated |
13 |
| Figure 1‑10: Laparoscopic Device Markets Covered (1 of 3) |
14 |
| Figure 1‑11: Laparoscopic Device Markets Covered (2 of 3) |
15 |
| Figure 1‑12: Laparoscopic Device Markets Covered (3 of 3) |
16 |
| Figure 1‑13: Key Report Updates |
17 |
| Figure 1‑14: Version History |
18 |
| Figure 2‑1: Laparoscopic Device Market by Segment, Worst Case Scenario, U.S., 2019 – 2029 (US$M) (1 of 2) |
35 |
| Figure 2‑2: Laparoscopic Device Market by Segment, Worst Case Scenario, U.S., 2019 – 2029 (US$M) (2 of 2) |
36 |
| Figure 2‑3: Laparoscopic Device Market by Segment, Base Case Scenario, U.S., 2019 – 2029 (US$M) (1 of 2) |
37 |
| Figure 2‑4: Laparoscopic Device Market by Segment, Base Case Scenario, U.S., 2019 – 2029 (US$M) (2 of 2) |
38 |
| Figure 2‑5: Laparoscopic Device Market by Segment, Best Case Scenario, U.S., 2019 – 2029 (US$M) (1 of 2) |
39 |
| Figure 2‑6: Laparoscopic Device Market by Segment, Best Case Scenario, U.S., 2019 – 2029 (US$M) (2 of 2) |
40 |
| Figure 4‑1: Laparoscopes by Company |
62 |
| Figure 4‑2: Access Devices by Company |
64 |
| Figure 4‑3: Laparoscopic Hand Instruments by Company (1 of 2) |
65 |
| Figure 4‑4: Laparoscopic Hand Instruments by Company (2 of 2) |
66 |
| Figure 4‑5: Insufflation Devices by Company (1 of 2) |
67 |
| Figure 4‑6: Insufflation Devices by Company (2 of 2) |
68 |
| Figure 4‑7: Suction-Irrigation Devices by Company |
69 |
| Figure 4‑8: Direct Energy Devices by Company (1 of 2) |
71 |
| Figure 4‑9: Direct Energy Devices by Company (2 of 2) |
72 |
| Figure 4‑10: Ultrasonic Devices by Company |
73 |
| Figure 4‑11: Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Sleeves by Company |
74 |
| Figure 4‑12: Closure Devices by Company |
76 |
| Figure 4‑13: Gastric Devices by Company |
77 |
| Figure 4‑14: Powered Morcellators by Company |
78 |
| Figure 4‑15: Class 2 Device Recall Stryker Video Processor/Illuminator |
79 |
| Figure 4‑16: Class 2 Device Recall GelPOINT Path Transanal Procedural Pack |
80 |
| Figure 4‑17: Class 2 Device Recall Kii Fios Advanced Access System |
80 |
| Figure 4‑18: Class 2 Device Recall GelPOINT Path Transanal Procedural Pack |
80 |
| Figure 4‑19: Class 2 Device Recall Endopath Xcel with Optiview Technology |
81 |
| Figure 4‑20: Class 2 Device Recall YelloPort Elite |
81 |
| Figure 4‑21: Class 2 Device Recall Step Bladeless Trocars |
81 |
| Figure 4‑22: Class 2 Device Recall VersaOne Reusable Positioning Cannula |
82 |
| Figure 4‑23: Class 2 Device Recall Epix latis Grasper |
83 |
| Figure 4‑24: Class 2 Device Recall Prestige |
83 |
| Figure 4‑25: Class 2 Device Recall CareFusion V. Mueller |
83 |
| Figure 4‑26: Class 2 Device Recall ConMed Anchor Tissue Retrieval System |
84 |
| Figure 4‑27: Class 2 Device Recall Covidien Endo Grasp |
84 |
| Figure 4‑28: Class 2 Device Recall Covidien Endo Clinch II |
84 |
| Figure 4‑29: Class 2 Device Recall ConMed 50L Abdominal Insufflator |
85 |
| Figure 4‑30: Class 3 Device Recall Insufflation Tubing Set, with Gas Filter |
85 |
| Figure 4‑31: Class 2 Device Recall Stryker High Flow II Tube Set for PNEUMO SURE High Flow Insufflator |
85 |
| Figure 4‑32: Class 2 Device Recall Stryker High Flow Tube Set with RealTime Pressure Sensing (RTP) for Pneumo Sure High Flow Insufflator |
85 |
| Figure 4‑33: Class 2 Device Recall PNEUMOCLEAR |
86 |
| Figure 4‑34: Class 2 Device Recall HydroSurg Plus Laparoscopic Irrigator |
87 |
| Figure 4‑35: Class 2 Device Recall XStream Irrigation System |
87 |
| Figure 4‑36: Class 2 Device Recall SafeAir Telescopic Smoke |
87 |
| Figure 4‑37: Class 2 Device Recall Telescopic Smoke Evac Pencil, PB, Coated |
87 |
| Figure 4‑38: Class 2 Device Recall StrykeFlow 2 Suction/Irrigator |
88 |
| Figure 4‑39: Class 2 Device Recall CAIMAN DISP.INSTR.ARTICULAT.D |
89 |
| Figure 4‑40: Class 2 Device Recall LigaSure Blunt Tip Laparoscopic Sealer/Divider, NanoCoated |
89 |
| Figure 4‑41: Class 2 Device Recall Covidien Force TriVerse Electrosurgical Devices |
89 |
| Figure 4‑42: Class 2 Device Recall Covidien Force TriVerse electrosurgical device |
89 |
| Figure 4‑43: Class 2 Device Recall Ethicon |
90 |
| Figure 4‑44: Class 2 Device Recall Ethicon |
91 |
| Figure 4‑45: Class 2 Device Recall Covidien |
91 |
| Figure 4‑46: Class 2 Device Recall HARMONIC ACE7, Shears with Advanced Hemostasis |
91 |
| Figure 4‑47: Class 2 Device Recall Clip Applier Kit |
92 |
| Figure 4‑48: Class 2 Device Recall Ethicon |
92 |
| Figure 4‑49: Class 2 Device Recall LIGAMAX |
92 |
| Figure 4‑50: Device Recall Straight Intraluminal Staplers, 33mm Diameter, Model SDH33A |
93 |
| Figure 4‑51: Class 1 Device Recall Endoscopic Curved Intraluminal Stapler, 21 mm Diameter, Model ECS21A |
93 |
| Figure 4‑52: Class 2 Device Recall Da Vinci S/Si |
93 |
| Figure 4‑53: Class 2 Device Recall Da Vinci X/Xi |
94 |
| Figure 4‑54: Class 2 Device Recall TriStaple 2.0 Black Intelligent Reload |
94 |
| Figure 4‑55: Class 2 Device Recall Covidien |
94 |
| Figure 4‑56: Class 2 Device Recall Covidien Endo GIA Ultra Universal stapler |
95 |
| Figure 4‑57: Class 2 Device Recall PneumoLiner |
96 |
| Figure 4‑58: Subserosal Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy |
98 |
| Figure 4‑59: Laparoscope Anatomical and Aon-anatomical Hepatectomy |
98 |
| Figure 4‑60: 3-Dimensional Versus 2-Dimensional Laparoscopy for Hysterectomy |
98 |
| Figure 4‑61: Does Using a 5 mm Telescope in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Reduce the Incidence of Trocar Site Hernia? |
99 |
| Figure 4‑62: Trocar Site Hernia After Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy, Supra Versus Infraumbilical Incision for Umbilical Trocar Entry (HOT) |
99 |
| Figure 4‑63: Which Trocar Access Site Should We Use in Laparoscopic Appendectomy? |
99 |
| Figure 4‑64: Laparoscopic Surgery: Comparison of Conventional Trocars to the Teleflex® MiniLap® System (MiniTroc) |
100 |
| Figure 4‑65: Lexion AP 50/30 Warmed Humidified Real Time CO2 Insufflation vs Airseal Recirculated CO2/Air Insufflation in Minimally Invasive Bariatric (Gastric Bypass) Surgery |
101 |
| Figure 4‑66: Post Operative Pain After Laparoscopic Hysterectomy Using Airseal® Versus Standard Insufflation System (AIRSEAL) |
101 |
| Figure 4‑67: CO2 vs Air Insufflation in Children Undergoing PEG |
102 |
| Figure 4‑68: Comparison of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) to Air Insufflation in Colonoscopy in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease (CO2-IBD) |
102 |
| Figure 4‑69: Gastric Insufflation During Positive Pressure Ventilation |
102 |
| Figure 4‑70: Post Operative Pain After Laparoscopic Hysterectomy Using Airseal® Versus Standard Insufflation System (AIRSEAL) |
103 |
| Figure 4‑71: Feasibility of the Ultravision™ System in Low Pressure Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Compared to Airseal® IFS |
103 |
| Figure 4‑72: Use of Antibiotic Irrigation to Decrease Wound Infections in Pediatric Perforated Appendicitis (PA Protocol) |
104 |
| Figure 4‑73: Cholecystectomy Blunt Dissection |
104 |
| Figure 4‑74: Irrigation and Suction Trial to Prevent SSI (I&S) |
104 |
| Figure 4‑75: A Prospective, Single-Arm Multi-Center Study of the ENSEAL X1 Curved Jaw Tissue Sealer in Select Procedures |
105 |
| Figure 4‑76: A Study of the ENSEAL® X1 Curved Jaw Tissue Sealer and Generator G11 in Thoracic, Urologic and Ear, Nose and Throat (ENT) Procedures |
105 |
| Figure 4‑77: Comparative Study Between Ligasure Versus Conventional Vessel Ligation in Thyroidectomy |
106 |
| Figure 4‑78: A Prospective, Multi-Center Evaluation of the ENSEAL X1 Large Jaw Tissue Sealer |
106 |
| Figure 4‑79: A Study of ECHELON 3000 (Next Generation Powered Stapler) in General Abdominal and Thoracic Lung Resection Procedures |
107 |
| Figure 4‑80: Assessing the Safety and Performance of the easyEndoTM Universal Linear Cutting Stapler in Laparoscopic Gastric Bypass Surgery |
107 |
| Figure 4‑81: Study of ECHELON ENDOPATH(TM) Staple Line Reinforcement |
108 |
| Figure 4‑82: Utility of OverStitch Sx After ESD |
108 |
| Figure 4‑83: Sleeve Gastrectomy Outcomes with Different Stapling Devices |
108 |
| Figure 4‑84: Endostapler Hemostasis Study Protocol |
109 |
| Figure 4‑85: Analysis of Endoloops, Endostaples and Endoclips for Closing the Appendiceal Stump During Laparoscopic Appendectomy |
109 |
| Figure 4‑86: The GATE Trial: Endoscopic Sutured Gastroplasty in Type 2 Diabetic, Obese Patients Using the Endomina Device (GATE) |
110 |
| Figure 4‑87: Comparison Between Gastric Band, Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy, Gastric Bypass Surgeries |
110 |
| Figure 4‑88: Intragastric Balloon in Obese Adolescents with Comorbidities (IGB) |
110 |
| Figure 4‑89: The BALLOON- (BALLOon Treatment for Obesity in Norway) Pilot Study |
111 |
| Figure 4‑90: ORBERA™ Post-Approval Study (OPAS-1) |
111 |
| Figure 4‑91: Safety and Efficacy of Using PK Morcellator with Pneumoliner Containment Hysterectomy |
112 |
| Figure 4‑92: Containment System for Laparoscopic Tissue Morcellation |
112 |
| Figure 4‑93: Efficacy of In-bag Morcellation (FIBROSAC) |
112 |
| Figure 5‑1: Laparoscopic Device Market by Segment, U.S., 2019 – 2029 (US$M) (1 of 2) |
116 |
| Figure 5‑2: Laparoscopic Device Market by Segment, U.S., 2019 – 2029 (US$M) (2 of 2) |
117 |
| Figure 5‑3: Leading Competitors, Laparoscopic Device Market, U.S., 2022 (1 of 2) |
130 |
| Figure 5‑4: Leading Competitors, Laparoscopic Device Market, U.S., 2022 (2 of 2) |
131 |
| Figure 5‑5: SWOT Analysis, Applied Medical |
149 |
| Figure 5‑6: SWOT Analysis, B. Braun |
150 |
| Figure 5‑7: SWOT Analysis, Becton Dickinson |
151 |
| Figure 5‑8: SWOT Analysis, CONMED |
152 |
| Figure 5‑9: SWOT Analysis, Ethicon (J&J) |
153 |
| Figure 5‑10: SWOT Analysis, Karl Storz |
154 |
| Figure 5‑11: SWOT Analysis, Medtronic |
155 |
| Figure 5‑12: SWOT Analysis, Olympus |
156 |
| Figure 5‑13: SWOT Analysis, Richard Wolf |
157 |
| Figure 5‑14: SWOT Analysis, Stryker |
158 |
| Figure 6‑1: Procedure Codes Investigated, U.S., 2022 |
159 |
| Figure 6‑2: Open and Laparoscopic Procedures, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
161 |
| Figure 6‑3: Open Procedures by Indication, U.S., 2019 – 2029 (1 of 2) |
164 |
| Figure 6‑4: Open Procedures by Indication, U.S., 2019 – 2029 (2 of 2) |
165 |
| Figure 6‑5: Laparoscopic Procedures by Indication, U.S., 2019 – 2029 (1 of 2) |
166 |
| Figure 6‑6: Laparoscopic Procedures by Indication, U.S., 2019 – 2029 (2 of 2) |
167 |
| Figure 6‑7: Gastric Band Procedures by Placement/Removal, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
169 |
| Figure 6‑8: Inpatient Gastric Band Procedures by Placement/Removal, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
170 |
| Figure 6‑9: Outpatient Gastric Band Procedures by Placement/Removal, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
171 |
| Figure 6‑10: Gastric Balloon Procedures, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
172 |
| Figure 6‑11: Gastric Bypass Procedures by Approach, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
174 |
| Figure 6‑12: Inpatient Gastric Bypass Procedures by Approach, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
175 |
| Figure 6‑13: Outpatient Gastric Bypass Procedures by Approach, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
176 |
| Figure 6‑14: Sleeve Gastrectomy Procedures by Approach, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
178 |
| Figure 6‑15: Inpatient Sleeve Gastrectomy Procedures by Approach, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
179 |
| Figure 6‑16: Outpatient Sleeve Gastrectomy Procedures by Approach, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
180 |
| Figure 6‑17: Anti-Reflux Procedures by Approach, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
182 |
| Figure 6‑18: Inpatient Anti-Reflux Procedures by Approach, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
183 |
| Figure 6‑19: Outpatient Anti-Reflux Procedures by Approach, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
184 |
| Figure 6‑20: Colectomy Procedures by Approach, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
186 |
| Figure 6‑21: Inpatient Colectomy Procedures by Approach, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
187 |
| Figure 6‑22: Outpatient Colectomy Procedures by Approach, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
188 |
| Figure 6‑23: Cholecystectomy Procedures by Approach, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
190 |
| Figure 6‑24: Inpatient Cholecystectomy Procedures by Approach, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
191 |
| Figure 6‑25: Outpatient Cholecystectomy Procedures by Approach, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
192 |
| Figure 6‑26: Nephrectomy Procedures by Approach, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
194 |
| Figure 6‑27: Inpatient Nephrectomy Procedures by Approach, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
195 |
| Figure 6‑28: Outpatient Nephrectomy Procedures by Approach, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
196 |
| Figure 6‑29: Appendectomy Procedures by Approach, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
198 |
| Figure 6‑30: Inpatient Appendectomy Procedures by Approach, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
199 |
| Figure 6‑31: Outpatient Appendectomy Procedures Approach, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
200 |
| Figure 6‑32: Adrenalectomy Procedures by Approach, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
202 |
| Figure 6‑33: Inpatient Adrenalectomy Procedures by Approach, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
203 |
| Figure 6‑34: Outpatient Adrenalectomy Procedures by Approach, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
204 |
| Figure 6‑35: Hernia Repair Procedures by Approach, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
206 |
| Figure 6‑36: Inpatient Hernia Repair Procedures by Approach, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
207 |
| Figure 6‑37: Outpatient Hernia Repair Procedures by Approach, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
208 |
| Figure 6‑38: Hysterectomy Procedures by Approach, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
210 |
| Figure 6‑39: Inpatient Hysterectomy Procedures by Approach, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
211 |
| Figure 6‑40: Outpatient Hysterectomy Procedures by Approach, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
212 |
| Figure 6‑41: Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery Procedures by Setting, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
213 |
| Figure 7‑1: Laparoscope Market by Segment, U.S., 2019 – 2029 (US$M) |
217 |
| Figure 7‑2: Rod Lens Laparoscope Market by Segment, U.S., 2019 – 2029 (US$M) |
219 |
| Figure 7‑3: Total Rod Lens Laparoscope Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
220 |
| Figure 7‑4: Diagnostic Rod Lens Laparoscope Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
221 |
| Figure 7‑5: Operating Rod Lens Laparoscope Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
222 |
| Figure 7‑6: Video Laparoscope Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
223 |
| Figure 7‑7: Lens Antifog Solution Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
224 |
| Figure 7‑8: Leading Competitors, Laparoscope Market, U.S., 2022 |
230 |
| Figure 8‑1: Access Device Market by Segment, U.S., 2019 – 2029 (US$M) |
234 |
| Figure 8‑2: Total Trocar Market by Segment, U.S., 2019 – 2029 (US$M) |
236 |
| Figure 8‑3: Total Trocar Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
237 |
| Figure 8‑4: Disposable Trocar Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
238 |
| Figure 8‑5: Reposable Trocar Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
239 |
| Figure 8‑6: Reusable Trocar Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
240 |
| Figure 8‑7: Single-Port Access Device Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
241 |
| Figure 8‑8: Leading Competitors, Access Device Market, U.S., 2022 |
245 |
| Figure 9‑1: Laparoscopic Hand Instrument Market by Instrument Type, U.S., 2019 – 2029 (US$M) |
249 |
| Figure 9‑2: Laparoscopic Hand Instrument Market by Device Function, U.S., 2019 – 2029 (US$M) |
251 |
| Figure 9‑3: Reusable Hand Instrument Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
252 |
| Figure 9‑4: Disposable Hand Instrument Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
253 |
| Figure 9‑5: Reposable Hand Instrument Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
254 |
| Figure 9‑6: Articulating Hand Instrument Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
256 |
| Figure 9‑7: Grasping Instrument Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
257 |
| Figure 9‑8: Cutting Instrument Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
258 |
| Figure 9‑9: Leading Competitors, Laparoscopic Hand Instrument Market, U.S., 2022 |
263 |
| Figure 10‑1: Insufflation Device Market by Segment, U.S., 2019 – 2029 (US$M) |
267 |
| Figure 10‑2: Insufflator Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
269 |
| Figure 10‑3: Insufflator Tubing Market by Segment, U.S., 2019 – 2029 (US$M) |
271 |
| Figure 10‑4: Total Insufflator Tubing Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
271 |
| Figure 10‑5: Standard Insufflator Tubing Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
272 |
| Figure 10‑6: Heated Insufflator Tubing Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
273 |
| Figure 10‑7: Smoke Evacuation Insufflator Tubing Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
274 |
| Figure 10‑8: Veress Needle Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
275 |
| Figure 10‑9: Leading Competitors, Insufflation Device Market, U.S., 2022 |
280 |
| Figure 11‑1: Suction-Irrigation Device Market by Segment, U.S., 2019 – 2029 (US$M) |
284 |
| Figure 11‑2: Disposable Kit Market by Segment, U.S., 2016 – 2026 |
286 |
| Figure 11‑3: Battery-Powered Disposable Kit Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
287 |
| Figure 11‑4: Hybrid Disposable Kit Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
288 |
| Figure 11‑5: Capital Equipment Disposable Kit Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
289 |
| Figure 11‑6: Total Reusable Tip Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 (US$M) |
290 |
| Figure 11‑7: Reusable Tip Market by Segment, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
291 |
| Figure 11‑8: Standard Reusable Tip Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
292 |
| Figure 11‑9: Electrocautery Reusable Tip Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
293 |
| Figure 11‑10: Suction-Irrigation Pump Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
294 |
| Figure 11‑11: Leading Competitors, Suction-Irrigation Device Market, U.S., 2022 |
298 |
| Figure 12‑1: Direct Energy Device Market by Segment, U.S., 2019 – 2029 (US$M) |
302 |
| Figure 12‑2: Total Monopolar Direct Energy Device Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
305 |
| Figure 12‑3: Monopolar Direct Energy Device Market by Segment, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
305 |
| Figure 12‑4: Total Monopolar Electrode Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
306 |
| Figure 12‑5: Monopolar Electrode Market by Segment, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
307 |
| Figure 12‑6: Disposable Monopolar Electrode Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
308 |
| Figure 12‑7: Reusable Monopolar Electrode Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
309 |
| Figure 12‑8: Patient Return Electrode Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
310 |
| Figure 12‑9: Total Monopolar Hand Device Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
311 |
| Figure 12‑10: Monopolar Hand Device Market by Segment, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
312 |
| Figure 12‑11: Electrosurgical Pencil Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
313 |
| Figure 12‑12: Monopolar Instrument Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
314 |
| Figure 12‑13: Total Bipolar Direct Energy Device Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
315 |
| Figure 12‑14: Bipolar Direct Energy Device Market by Segment, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
316 |
| Figure 12‑15: Standard Bipolar Device Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
317 |
| Figure 12‑16: Advanced Bipolar Device Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
318 |
| Figure 12‑17: Electrosurgical Generator Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
320 |
| Figure 12‑18: Leading Competitors, Direct Energy Device Market, U.S., 2022 |
325 |
| Figure 12‑19: Leading Competitors, Monopolar Direct Energy Device Market, U.S., 2022 |
327 |
| Figure 12‑20: Leading Competitors, Direct Energy Device Market, U.S., 2022 |
328 |
| Figure 13‑1: Ultrasonic Device Market by Segment, U.S., 2019 – 2029 (US$M) |
331 |
| Figure 13‑2: Reposable Ultrasonic Instrument Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
334 |
| Figure 13‑3: Ultrasonic Generator Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
335 |
| Figure 13‑4: Leading Competitors, Ultrasonic Device Market, U.S., 2022 |
339 |
| Figure 14‑1: Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Sleeve Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
342 |
| Figure 14‑2: Leading Competitors, Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Sleeve Market, U.S., 2022 |
345 |
| Figure 15‑1: Closure Device Market by Segment, U.S., 2019 – 2029 (US$M) |
349 |
| Figure 15‑2: Laparoscopic Stapler Market by Segment, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
352 |
| Figure 15‑3: Laparoscopic Stapler Firing Gun Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
353 |
| Figure 15‑4: Laparoscopic Stapler Cartridge Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
354 |
| Figure 15‑5: Total Endosuturing Device Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
355 |
| Figure 15‑6: Endosuturing Device Market by Segment, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
356 |
| Figure 15‑7: Suture Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
357 |
| Figure 15‑8: Suture Needle Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
358 |
| Figure 15‑9: Laparoscopic Needle Holder Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
359 |
| Figure 15‑10: Automated Suturing Device Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
360 |
| Figure 15‑11: Total Clip Device Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
362 |
| Figure 15‑12: Clip Applier Market by Segment, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
362 |
| Figure 15‑13: 5-mm Disposable Clip Applier Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
363 |
| Figure 15‑14: 10-mm Disposable Clip Applier Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
364 |
| Figure 15‑15: 10 mm Clips for Reposable Clip Applier Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
365 |
| Figure 15‑16: Leading Competitors, Closure Device Market, U.S., 2022 |
369 |
| Figure 16‑1: Gastric Device Market by Segment, U.S., 2019 – 2029 (US$M) |
373 |
| Figure 16‑2: Gastric Band Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
376 |
| Figure 16‑3: Gastric Balloon Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
378 |
| Figure 16‑4: Leading Competitors, Gastric Device Market, U.S., 2022 |
382 |
| Figure 17‑1: Powered Morcellator Market by Segment, U.S., 2019 – 2029 (US$M) |
387 |
| Figure 17‑2: Total Powered Morcellator Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
389 |
| Figure 17‑3: Disposable Powered Morcellator Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
390 |
| Figure 17‑4: Reposable Powered Morcellator Market, U.S., 2019 – 2029 |
391 |
| Figure 17‑5: Leading Competitors, Powered Morcellator Market, U.S., 2022 |
395 |
In 2022, Medtronic and Ethicon emerged as the key players in the U.S. laparoscopic device market, commanding the majority of the total market share. These companies have an extensive range of products, and they lead the most significant portions of the overall market, such as the closure, direct energy, and ultrasonic device markets.
