In 2020, the Indian orthobiologics market size was valued at $76.2 million, with over 520,000 bone grafting procedures performed every year. The market size is expected to increase at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 12.4% to reach $172.3 million in 2026.
Throughout this medical market research, we analyzed 23 orthobiologics companies across India and used our comprehensive methodology to understand the market sizes, unit sales, company market shares, and to create accurate forecasts.
While this MedSuite report contains all of the Indian Orthopedic Biomaterials market data and analysis, each of the market segments is also available as stand-alone MedCore reports. This allows you to get access to only the market research that you need.
Market Drivers & Limiters for Each Orthopedic Biomaterials Device market
Recent Mergers & Acquisitions
Disease Overviews and Demographic Information
Company Profiles, Product Portfolios and SWOT for Top Competitors
Market Value and Industry Trends
The first bone bank opened in India only in 1997, as compared to 1949 in China. In 2019, the majority of the allograft and DBM allograft supply in India was controlled by two local bone banks, TMH Tissue Bank and Ramaiah Tissue Bank. Other institutions have attempted to open bone banks in the past but have largely been unsuccessful. While the overall trend is positive, the adoption rate is still low, thus limiting the supply side of the market.
Surgical procedures that require the use of orthopedic biomaterials are generally associated with diseases and indications that become more prevalent in the population with an increase in age, such as osteoarthritis of the spine and knee. In 2019, over 6% of India were aged 65 and over; this proportion is projected to grow steadily over the forecast period, as further cohorts of baby boomers turn 65.
Although three-injection products were available in India before single-injection products, the benefits of the latter are typically perceived to outweigh the favorable cost of the former. As a result, single-injection products are expected to continue to cannibalize three-injection products over the forecast period. Due to the premium price of single-injection of products, this will stimulate the total HA viscosupplementation market.
Competitive Analysis
In 2019, the leading competitor in the Indian orthopedic biomaterials market was Sanofi, which was solely attributed to its leading position in the HA viscosupplementation market. The company held the leading position in the single-injection market and the third-leading position in the three-injection market. Sanofi’s portfolio includes the single-injection Synvisc-One® and the three-injection Synvisc® product lines.
Fidia Farmaceutici was the second-leading competitor, which was also attributed to its position in the HA viscosupplementation market. The company held the second-leading position in the single-injection and three-injection markets and the fourth-leading position in the five-injection market. Fidia Farmaceutici’s portfolio includes the single-injection HYALONE® and the three-injection and five-injection HYALGAN® product line.
Segments Covered
Click on each title to view more detailed market segmentation.
Procedure Volumes for Orthopedic Biomaterials Devices – MedPro – The complete procedural analysis for each segment of the Indian Orthopedic Biomaterials market.
Orthopedic Bone Graft Substitute Market – MedCore – This market is further segmented by Material Type, including Allograft, Demineralized Bone Matrix Allograft, and Synthetic. Each of these Material Types is segmented by Spine, Trauma, Large Joint Reconstruction, Craniomaxillofacial, and Oncology.
Figure 2 16: Evaluation of DTRAX Graft in Patients with Cervical Degenerative Disc Disease 44
Figure 2 17: Ridge Preservation Using FDBA and a Collagen Wound Dressing in Molar Sites. 44
Figure 2 18: Assessing Physical Activity Levels of Patients Following HTO. 45
Figure 2 19: Evaluation of Fusion Rate Using K2M VESUVIUS® Demineralized Fibers with K2M EVEREST® Spinal System 45
Figure 2 20: Evaluation of Zimmer Puros® Allograft vs. Creos™ Allograft for Alveolar Ridge Preservation 46
Figure 2 21: Synthetic Bone Graft Substitute vs. Autologous Spongiosa in Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction 46
Figure 2 22: Cerament Treatment of Fracture Defects (CERTiFy) 47
Figure 2 23: Comparison of Bioactive Glass and Beta-Tricalcium Phosphate as Bone Graft Substitute (BAGvsTCP) 47
Figure 2 24: Evaluation of Fusion Rate of Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion (ACDF) Using Cervios ChronOs™ and Bonion™ 48
Figure 2 25: AttraX® Putty vs. Autograft in XLIF® 49
Figure 2 26: Comparison of nanOss Bioactive with Autograft and Bone Marrow Aspirate to Autograft in the Posterolateral Spine 49
Figure 2 27: Assessment of nanOss Bioactive 3D in the Posterolateral Spine 50
Figure 2 28: Assessment of Ridge Preservation Using Moldable Beta-tricalcium Phosphate Bone Grafting System 50
Figure 2 29: Outcome Comparison of Allograft and Synthetic Bone Substitute in High Tibial Osteotomy 51
Figure 2 30: Efficacy and Safety of SurgiFill™ on Spinal Fusion 51
Figure 2 31: Assessment of HydroxyColl Bone Graft Substitute in High Tibial Osteotomy Wedge Grafting. (HColl_HTO) 52
Figure 2 32: Outcomes of the Evans Calcaneal Lengthening Based on Bone Grafting Material 52
Figure 2 33: Deproteinized Bovine Bone in Alveolar Bone Critical Size Defect (>2cm) Secondary to Cyst Removal 53
Figure 2 34: A Prospective Study of Instrumented, Posterolateral Lumbar Fusions (PLF) With OsteoAMP® 53
Figure 2 35: The Clinical Effect of i-FACTOR® Versus Allograft in Non-instrumented Posterolateral Spondylodesis Operation 54
Figure 2 36: Clinical Study of Injectable Ceramics Bone Graft Substitute Containing rhBMP-2 54
Figure 2 37: Prospective Study of Safety and Efficacy of InQu® Bone Graft Extender in Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery (Intebody) 55
Figure 2 38: A Study of INFUSE Bone Graft (BMP-2) in the Treatment of Tibial Pseudarthrosis in Neurofibromatosis Type 1 55
Figure 2 39: Clinical Study of INFUSE® Bone Graft Compared to Autogenous Bone Graft for Vertical Ridge Augmentation 56
Figure 2 40: Parallel Study Between BMP-2 and Autologous Bone Graft After Ilizarow Treatment 56
Figure 2 41: RCT of AttraX® Putty vs. Autograft in Instrumented Posterolateral Spinal Fusion (AxA) 57
Figure 2 42: Long-term Safety and Effectiveness of AUGMENT® Bone Graft Compared to Autologous Bone Graft 57
Figure 2 43: rhBMP-2 vs Autologous Bone Grafting for the Treatment of Non-union of the Docking Site in Tibial Bone Transport 58
Figure 2 44: Evaluation of Radiculitis Following Use of Bone Morphogenetic Protein-2 for Interbody Arthrodesis in Spinal Surgery 58
Figure 2 45: Study of Cingal™ for the Relief of Knee Osteoarthritis Compared to Triamcinolone Hexacetonide at 39 Weeks Follow-Up (Cingal17-02) 59
Figure 2 46: HyaloFAST Trial for Repair of Articular Cartilage in the Knee (FastTRACK) 59
Figure 2 47: Effectiveness of Two Hyaluronic Acids in Osteoarthritis of the Knee 60
Figure 2 48: The Effect of Topical Application of Hyaluronic Acid on Immediate Dental Implant 61
Figure 2 49: To Look at the Characteristics of Synovial Fluid and Cartilage Matrix in Osteoarthritic Knees After Hyaluronic Acid Injection 61
Figure 2 50: Use of Hyaluronic Acid as a Therapeutic Strategy for Bone Repair in Humans 62
Figure 2 51: Two Weekly Intra-articular Hyaluronan Knee Injections, Given One Week Apart, of HYMOVIS Combined With a Physical Exercise Program (PEP) Compared to PEP Alone, in a Relatively Young, Active Population of Subjects With Patellofemoral Osteoarthritis (PFOA) and/or Tibiofemoral Osteoarthritis (TFOA) 62
Figure 2 52: Comparative Assessment of Viscosupplementation With Polynucleotides and Hyaluronic Acid (PNHA1401) 63
Figure 2 53: Trial Comparing Botulin Toxin Versus Hyaluronic Acid by Intra-articular Injection (GOTOX) 63
Figure 2 54: Trial to Assess the Structural Effect and Long-term Symptomatic Relief of Intra-articular Injections of HA (ViscOA) 64
Figure 3 1: Currency Exchange Rate, 2019 67
Figure 3 2: Orthopedic Biomaterials Market by Segment, India, 2016 – 2026 (US$M) 69
Figure 3 3: Orthopedic Biomaterials Market by Segment, India, 2016 – 2026 (IN₹M) 70
Figure 3 4: Orthopedic Biomaterials Market Growth by Segment, India, 2016 – 2026 74
Figure 3 5: Drivers and Limiters, Orthopedic Biomaterials Market, India, 2019 77
Figure 3 6: Leading Competitors, Orthopedic Biomaterials Market, India, 2019 81
Figure 7 7: Drivers and Limiters, Hyaluronic Acid Viscosupplementation Market, India, 2019 262
Figure 7 8: Leading Competitors, Hyaluronic Acid Viscosupplementation Market, India, 2019 265
iData’s 9-Step Research Methodology
Our reports follow an in-depth 9-step methodology which focuses on the following research systems:
Original primary research that consists of the most up-to-date market data
Strong foundation of quantitative and qualitative research
Focused on the needs and strategic challenges of the industry participants
Step 1: Project Initiation & Team Selection During this preliminary investigation, all staff members involved in the industry discusses the topic in detail.
Step 2: Prepare Data Systems and Perform Secondary Research The first task of the research team is to prepare for the data collection process: Filing systems and relational databases are developed as needed.
Step 3: Preparation for Interviews & Questionnaire Design The core of all iData research reports is primary market research. Interviews with industry insiders represent the single most reliable way to obtain accurate, current data about market conditions, trends, threats and opportunities.
Step 4: Performing Primary Research At this stage, interviews are performed using contacts and information acquired in the secondary research phase.
Step 5: Research Analysis: Establishing Baseline Estimates Following the completion of the primary research phase, the collected information must be synthesized into an accurate view of the market status. The most important question is the current state of the market.
Step 6: Market Forecast and Analysis iData Research uses a proprietary method to combine statistical data and opinions of industry experts to forecast future market values.
Step 7: Identify Strategic Opportunities iData analysts identify in broad terms why some companies are gaining or losing share within a given market segment.
Step 8: Final Review and Market Release An integral part of the iData research methodology is a built-in philosophy of quality control and continuing improvement is integral to the iData philosophy.
Step 9: Customer Feedback and Market Monitoring iData philosophy of continuous improvement requires that reports and consulting projects be monitored after release for customer feedback and market accuracy.
