Miami, Florida-based BioTissue Holdings Inc. has completed its name change from TissueTech, Inc.
TissueTech Is Officially BioTissue
1 min read Premium comments
Secondary#biotissue#tissuetech
The company announced its branding initiative earlier this year. Along with TissueTech changing its name, its subsidiaries also changed names. BioTissue Inc. is now BioTissue Ocular Inc. and Amniox Medical, Inc. is now BioTissue Surgical Inc. For OTW’s initial coverage of the rebranding, see “Regenerative Medicine Pioneer, TissueTech, Rebrands.”
BioTissue President and CEO Ted Davis commented, “For over 25 years, the BioTissue name has been representative of leadership in ocular regenerative healing. Our name change allows us to showcase how our experience and expertise extends into the surgical space under the same trusted brand.”
Davis continued, “Also, healthcare professionals and their patients can rest assured that we will continue to deliver the same high-quality products on which they rely.”
BioTissue is a pioneering biologics firm. Founded in 1997, the company uses products derived from human amniotic and umbilical cord tissues. More than 390 peer-reviewed publications have documented the scientific and clinical use of its unique products and nearly 700,000 patients have benefited from utilizing BioTissue products.
Not all names at BioTissue are changing. Its amniotic membrane products, which utilize BioTissue’s proprietary CryoTek® cryopreservation technology, will continue to be available under the same brand names. This includes the following: Neox®, a cryopreserved human amniotic membrane allograft for wound healing; Clarix®, a cryopreserved human amniotic membrane allograft “used as an adjunct for surgical applications,” Prokera®, corneal bandages for damaged corneas; AmnioGraft®, a cryopreserved amniotic membrane graft; and AmnioGuard®, an ultra-thick, cryopreserved amniotic membrane graft.
The rebranding is not slowing down the company’s development. According to the press release, BioTissue has “multiple investigational new drug clinical trials underway to secure biologic license applications for specific indications to address unmet clinical needs in the ocular, orthopedics, and wound management markets.”
React:
Discussion
This is a fascinating development. In my practice we've seen similar outcomes with the revised protocol. The key differentiator seems to be patient selection criteria. Has anyone else noticed the correlation with BMI thresholds?
Great point. I'd push back slightly on the conclusion, the sample size in the cited study is too small to draw population-level inferences. That said, the directional signal is compelling and worth a larger RCT.
We implemented a similar approach last year. Early results are promising but we're still gathering 12-month follow-up data. Happy to share our protocol if anyone is interested.
Join the conversation
Orthopedic professionals are discussing this. Sign in and upgrade to read every comment and add your voice.