Cargando…

The life-cycles of skin replacement technologies

INTRODUCTION: Skin Replacement Technologies (SRTs) emerged as skin alternatives for burns, large excisions or trauma. The original publications represent the available knowledge on a subject and can be modeled as a logistic S-curve which depicts the technology’s evolution life-cycle. The Technology...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Climov, Mihail, Panayi, Adriana C., Borah, Gregory, Orgill, Dennis P.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7055911/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32130238
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229455
_version_ 1783503448270962688
author Climov, Mihail
Panayi, Adriana C.
Borah, Gregory
Orgill, Dennis P.
author_facet Climov, Mihail
Panayi, Adriana C.
Borah, Gregory
Orgill, Dennis P.
author_sort Climov, Mihail
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Skin Replacement Technologies (SRTs) emerged as skin alternatives for burns, large excisions or trauma. The original publications represent the available knowledge on a subject and can be modeled as a logistic S-curve which depicts the technology’s evolution life-cycle. The Technology Innovation Maturation Evaluation (TIME) model was previously introduced to study the life-cycles of biotechnologies. METHODS: PubMed database was searched 1900–2015 to review relevant publications. All skin replacement or regeneration products on the US market were included. The TIME model was applied to assess evolutionary patterns for each technology. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Three SRT clusters were identified: processed biologics technologies (PBT), extracellular matrix technologies (EMT), and cell-based technologies (CBT). Publications on EMTs and CBTs start decades after PBTs, however, are greater in number and follow an ascending trend. PBTs reached a plateau, suggesting near-senescence. The CBT curve was non-logarithmic and the TIME model could not be applied. The technology initiation point (T(i)) for PBTs was 1939 and the establishment point (T(e)) 1992. For EMT, T(i) was 1966 and T(e) 2010. Sixty-one products were identified (49 EMTs, 7 CBTs, 5 PBTs). PBTs appeared 11 years after T(e) and EMTs four years prior T(e). Thirty-seven products in the EMT category, and one in the PBT category, were developed before T(e). The most common FDA regulatory mechanism for SRT was found to be 510(k) followed by HCT/P 361. CONCLUSION: Innovation is an indicator of the evolution of technology. The number of publications can be used as a metric of this evolution and the fact that the SRT field falls under such pattern demonstrates that SRT is an innovation-based industry. EMT is the most efficient cluster. Few products from SRT registered a commercial success, and from those that did, those technologies were generally found to be part of the most productive cluster, 1(st) in concept, conceptually simple, easily regulated and produced, cost and clinically efficient, reimbursable, able to solve a specific problem efficiently, had a platform technology design that allowed for further innovation and adaptation for other uses and, as found by application of the TIME model, appear prior to technology establishment.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7055911
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-70559112020-03-13 The life-cycles of skin replacement technologies Climov, Mihail Panayi, Adriana C. Borah, Gregory Orgill, Dennis P. PLoS One Research Article INTRODUCTION: Skin Replacement Technologies (SRTs) emerged as skin alternatives for burns, large excisions or trauma. The original publications represent the available knowledge on a subject and can be modeled as a logistic S-curve which depicts the technology’s evolution life-cycle. The Technology Innovation Maturation Evaluation (TIME) model was previously introduced to study the life-cycles of biotechnologies. METHODS: PubMed database was searched 1900–2015 to review relevant publications. All skin replacement or regeneration products on the US market were included. The TIME model was applied to assess evolutionary patterns for each technology. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Three SRT clusters were identified: processed biologics technologies (PBT), extracellular matrix technologies (EMT), and cell-based technologies (CBT). Publications on EMTs and CBTs start decades after PBTs, however, are greater in number and follow an ascending trend. PBTs reached a plateau, suggesting near-senescence. The CBT curve was non-logarithmic and the TIME model could not be applied. The technology initiation point (T(i)) for PBTs was 1939 and the establishment point (T(e)) 1992. For EMT, T(i) was 1966 and T(e) 2010. Sixty-one products were identified (49 EMTs, 7 CBTs, 5 PBTs). PBTs appeared 11 years after T(e) and EMTs four years prior T(e). Thirty-seven products in the EMT category, and one in the PBT category, were developed before T(e). The most common FDA regulatory mechanism for SRT was found to be 510(k) followed by HCT/P 361. CONCLUSION: Innovation is an indicator of the evolution of technology. The number of publications can be used as a metric of this evolution and the fact that the SRT field falls under such pattern demonstrates that SRT is an innovation-based industry. EMT is the most efficient cluster. Few products from SRT registered a commercial success, and from those that did, those technologies were generally found to be part of the most productive cluster, 1(st) in concept, conceptually simple, easily regulated and produced, cost and clinically efficient, reimbursable, able to solve a specific problem efficiently, had a platform technology design that allowed for further innovation and adaptation for other uses and, as found by application of the TIME model, appear prior to technology establishment. Public Library of Science 2020-03-04 /pmc/articles/PMC7055911/ /pubmed/32130238 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229455 Text en © 2020 Climov et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Climov, Mihail
Panayi, Adriana C.
Borah, Gregory
Orgill, Dennis P.
The life-cycles of skin replacement technologies
title The life-cycles of skin replacement technologies
title_full The life-cycles of skin replacement technologies
title_fullStr The life-cycles of skin replacement technologies
title_full_unstemmed The life-cycles of skin replacement technologies
title_short The life-cycles of skin replacement technologies
title_sort life-cycles of skin replacement technologies
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7055911/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32130238
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229455
work_keys_str_mv AT climovmihail thelifecyclesofskinreplacementtechnologies
AT panayiadrianac thelifecyclesofskinreplacementtechnologies
AT borahgregory thelifecyclesofskinreplacementtechnologies
AT orgilldennisp thelifecyclesofskinreplacementtechnologies
AT climovmihail lifecyclesofskinreplacementtechnologies
AT panayiadrianac lifecyclesofskinreplacementtechnologies
AT borahgregory lifecyclesofskinreplacementtechnologies
AT orgilldennisp lifecyclesofskinreplacementtechnologies