Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Biotech / Medical : VD's Model Portfolio & Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Miljenko Zuanic who wrote (4477)	3/25/1998 3:15:00 AM
From: Rocketman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9719

For normal simple fractures that heal with casting, I just don't see a need for an invasive procedure such as this. This would be useful in non-union fractures where the ends of the bones callus over rather than heal together. Usually this isn't known until after weeks in a cast or traction when healing just doesn't occur, only then is a surgical answer tried. I don't see them comparing against allograft (cadaver bone) either. I'd be interested to know if they studied it. Allograft also gives a similar reduction in pain, surgical time, cost and risk of surgical infection, but does carry the risk of being infected from the donor bone. Although, this is a fairly small risk as the cadavers can be pretty thoroughly tested for disease. Also, the bone can come from one specific cadaver and not from a pool of donors as some higher risk blood products do. If I was at CBMI or Stryker, I would be disappointed with the weak clinical outcome, as I think the markets were. Rman