Cyto1 & Rman,
Sorry for dropping out of the debate yesterday, but my corner of the Midwest was under a tornado warning, so I thought I'd get my car and myself out of the office parking lot and into my garage. As it was, the tornadoes missed, but we got baseball-sized hail, so I spent the evening walking around looking at lots of smashed car windows and bodies (also car, but no '51 Chevy's).
I'll trot over to the library and check out JACS, 10/96, but I read the above as saying that Seprafilm is 75% effective in preventing significant adhesions that otherwise would have occurred, which if we factor it into the analysis makes $750/original operation for Seprafilm just about the break-even point.
As to the non-financial benefits of Seprafilm, I totally concur, but as investors the question is what will really motivate surgeons to use? I don't think malpractice is a real issue, at least initially; adhesions are a normal risk of surgery and until Seprafilm is the accepted standard of care not using it is probably not a real exposure.
Caveat: I like the stuff, I'm just flexing the numbers to see if they hold.
Sidenote: Has GENZ done any combo studies of Seprafilm and Sepracoat?
biowa |
