Endoscopic Closure Devices Market by Product Type (Clips, Sealants, Sutures), Closure Mechanism (Adhesive Closure, Mechanical Closure), Material, Application, End User - Global Forecast 2025-2032
Description
The Endoscopic Closure Devices Market was valued at USD 538.15 million in 2024 and is projected to grow to USD 570.77 million in 2025, with a CAGR of 6.10%, reaching USD 864.62 million by 2032.
A concise framing of how innovations in endoscopic closure technologies intersect with clinical needs regulatory pressures and evolving care delivery models
Endoscopic closure devices are central to the evolution of minimally invasive gastrointestinal and bariatric care, bridging technical capability with clinical outcomes and operational efficiency. Across clinical settings, clinicians seek closure solutions that reduce procedure time, lower complication rates, and support faster patient recovery. Innovations in device architecture, materials science, and delivery systems have accelerated the adoption of less invasive approaches, and as a result, device makers are increasingly focusing on integrated systems that combine closure performance with ease of use in routine practice.
Regulatory frameworks and payer expectations are simultaneously shaping product development priorities. Developers must demonstrate robust safety profiles, reproducible technique, and clear clinical value while navigating diverse regulatory pathways across jurisdictions. Consequently, clinical evidence generation, clinician training, and post-market surveillance have become core components of commercialization strategies. As the clinical landscape shifts toward outpatient procedures and value-based care, endoscopic closure device manufacturers are positioned to influence care pathways by aligning product design with economic, clinical, and operational imperatives.
How technological advances clinical practice patterns and reimbursement dynamics are reshaping the future of endoscopic closure device deployment
The landscape of endoscopic closure devices is undergoing transformative shifts driven by converging technological, clinical, and economic forces. Advances in materials and manufacturing have enabled devices that are stronger, more biocompatible, and more predictable in performance, prompting clinicians to expand indications and shorten learning curves. In parallel, imaging improvements and enhanced endoscopic platforms have enabled more precise placement and verification of closure devices, thereby improving procedural success and reducing secondary interventions.
Operationally, there is a clear movement toward outpatient and ambulatory settings, which places a premium on devices that support fast procedural throughput and predictable recovery profiles. Reimbursement landscapes and bundled payment models are also encouraging solutions that demonstrably reduce overall episode costs. Finally, the entry of robotics and digital-assisted endoscopy introduces new integration challenges and opportunities, as closure devices must now interoperate with advanced delivery systems and data-rich workflows, creating avenues for new value-added services and connectivity-driven differentiation.
Assessing how recent United States tariff adjustments have altered procurement, manufacturing cost structures, and supply chain resilience strategies among device makers
Policy changes in tariff regimes have created a ripple effect across global medical device supply chains, and the cumulative impact of tariff adjustments in the United States through 2025 has been particularly notable for components and raw materials used in endoscopic closure devices. Metal alloys, specialized polymers, and certain adhesive precursor chemicals are often sourced globally, and increased import duties raise input costs and compel manufacturers to reassess supplier relationships. When tariffs alter the cost structure, device makers face decisions about absorbing cost, passing it to purchasers, or seeking alternative sourcing strategies.
In response to tariff-driven pressures, many organizations have accelerated supply-chain resilience initiatives. Firms are evaluating nearshoring options, diversifying supplier bases, and increasing inventory buffers to mitigate volatility. For some players, vertical integration of critical components or establishing regional manufacturing footprints has become an attractive risk-management strategy that both reduces exposure to trade policy fluctuations and shortens lead times for clinical customers. Importantly, procurement and pricing teams must coordinate closely with regulatory and quality functions to ensure that any sourcing changes maintain compliance, performance consistency, and uninterrupted clinical availability.
Segment-driven priorities for product development commercialization and clinical adoption across product types, end users, applications, closure mechanisms, and material choices
A nuanced understanding of market segments is essential for product teams and commercialization leaders. Based on Product Type, market is studied across Clips, Sealants, and Sutures. The Clips is further studied across Metal Clips and Polymer Clips. The Sealants is further studied across Fibrin Sealants and Synthetic Adhesives. The Sutures is further studied across Absorbable Sutures and Non Absorbable Sutures. Each product category carries distinct development and regulatory considerations: clips emphasize mechanical retention and delivery profile, sealants prioritize adhesion chemistry and biocompatibility, and sutures balance handling characteristics with degradation profiles.
End users shape adoption velocity and purchasing behavior, and based on End User, market is studied across Ambulatory Surgical Centers, Clinics, and Hospitals. Ambulatory and clinic settings demand streamlined packaging and simplified deployment, while hospitals often require broader product portfolios and integrated inventory controls. Clinical applications influence design tradeoffs, and based on Application, market is studied across Bariatric and Gastrointestinal. Bariatric procedures may prioritize reinforced closure and staple-line adjuncts, whereas gastrointestinal applications require devices optimized for varied tissue thickness and lesion types.
Mechanism of closure defines the clinical workflow and training needs, and based on Closure Mechanism, market is studied across Adhesive Closure and Mechanical Closure. The Adhesive Closure is further studied across Injectable Adhesives and Topical Adhesives. The Mechanical Closure is further studied across Clip Closure and Suture Closure. Material choice underpins both performance and regulatory pathways, and based on Material, market is studied across Metal and Polymer. Metal materials often deliver durable mechanical strength and radiopacity, while polymeric solutions can offer flexibility, reduced artifact on imaging, and tailored biodegradation. Collectively, these segmentation dimensions inform product roadmaps, market entry sequencing, and clinician education programs.
Regional adoption patterns, regulatory nuances and commercialization levers shaping device strategy across the Americas, EMEA, and Asia-Pacific
Regional dynamics exert a strong influence on strategy, as adoption, reimbursement, and manufacturing footprints vary by geography. In the Americas, strong private and public payer systems, a high procedural volume environment, and established distribution networks create fertile ground for premiumized devices and rapid technology uptake, particularly in urban tertiary centers. This region also tends to lead on large-scale clinical trials and real-world evidence initiatives, which can accelerate broader acceptance of innovative closure modalities.
Regulatory frameworks and payer heterogeneity shape trajectories in Europe, Middle East & Africa, where national health systems, centralized approval pathways, and regional reimbursement variations necessitate tailored market entry approaches. Manufacturers often pursue country-by-country strategies that prioritize high-value markets while leveraging pan-European clinical data to support broader adoption. In Asia-Pacific, a mix of mature and emerging healthcare systems drives a dual strategy that balances cost-sensitive procurement with pockets of high adoption in advanced centers. Manufacturing localization, strategic partnerships, and targeted training programs frequently underpin successful expansion in this region, while regulatory harmonization efforts continue to influence timelines and go-to-market planning.
How competitive strategies, partnerships, and clinical collaborations are determining winners and challengers in the endoscopic closure device ecosystem
Competitive dynamics in the endoscopic closure device arena reflect both consolidation among established medtech firms and active innovation from smaller specialized companies. Large device manufacturers leverage scale, global distribution, and integrated product portfolios to bundle closure solutions with complementary endoscopic platforms. These organizations typically invest heavily in clinical evidence generation and post-market surveillance to support hospital purchasing committees and national tender processes. At the same time, nimble challengers and startups introduce differentiated materials, delivery mechanisms, and cost-efficient manufacturing processes that attract early adopters and strategic partners.
Collaboration between device makers and clinical centers has intensified, with co-development agreements, surgeon-inventor partnerships, and early feasibility trials facilitating iterative product refinement. Strategic licensing, acquisitions, and distribution partnerships remain common routes to scale, enabling innovators to access regulatory expertise, reimbursement pathways, and established sales channels. For incumbents, the imperative is to balance incremental product improvements with targeted acquisitions that add meaningful clinical differentiation, while for innovators the priority is demonstrating reproducible procedural benefits and creating clear value propositions for payers and providers.
Practical, high-impact strategic moves product leaders should implement now to strengthen innovation, supply resilience, and clinical adoption across markets
Industry leaders must adopt a multi-dimensional strategy to capture clinical and commercial value in the evolving endoscopic closure space. First, prioritize modular product architectures that can be adapted to different clinical contexts and delivery platforms, thereby expanding addressable use cases while containing development costs. Second, invest in robust clinical programs that demonstrate not only safety and efficacy but also operational advantages such as reduced procedure time, lower complication rates, and predictable recovery trajectories that resonate with payers and hospital administrators.
Third, strengthen supply chain resilience by diversifying sourcing, evaluating nearshoring opportunities, and establishing regional manufacturing where appropriate to mitigate tariff and transport risks. Fourth, integrate clinician training into commercialization plans through simulation-based modules, proctoring programs, and digital learning tools that shorten the adoption curve. Fifth, pursue strategic partnerships with endoscopy platform providers, imaging vendors, and adhesive chemistry specialists to create integrated solutions that are more difficult for competitors to replicate. Finally, align pricing and reimbursement strategies to local payment models and work proactively with health technology assessment bodies to highlight the economic and clinical case for adoption.
A rigorous mixed-methods research approach combining clinical expert interviews, targeted literature review, and cross-validated device categorization to ensure actionable insights
The research underpinning these insights combines qualitative and quantitative methods to ensure robustness and relevance. Primary research included structured interviews with clinicians, procurement leaders, and device development executives to capture frontline perspectives on device performance, unmet needs, and purchasing drivers. Secondary research comprised a targeted review of peer-reviewed clinical literature, regulatory filings, and device labeling to validate claims regarding safety profiles and intended use. Evidence from these sources was triangulated to reconcile disparate perspectives and prioritize high-impact trends.
Methodological rigor was maintained through systematic inclusion criteria for literature, transparency in interview guides, and cross-validation of findings across stakeholder groups. Device typologies were categorized based on mechanism, material, and clinical application to enable meaningful comparisons. Limitations and potential biases were acknowledged, and sensitivity checks were performed to assess the robustness of thematic conclusions. This layered approach ensures that recommendations are grounded in both real-world practice and the best available scientific evidence.
A concise conclusion emphasizing strategic alignment across innovation, clinical evidence, and supply resilience to convert opportunity into lasting clinical impact
In summary, the endoscopic closure device landscape presents substantial opportunity for organizations that align technological innovation with pragmatic clinical and commercial strategy. Advances in materials, delivery mechanisms, and imaging integration are expanding the envelope of what is clinically feasible, while payer and procedural trends are privileging solutions that deliver predictable outcomes and operational efficiency. However, policy changes and supply chain volatility require proactive mitigation measures and a willingness to adapt sourcing and manufacturing footprints.
Leaders should treat clinical evidence, clinician training, and supply resilience as equal pillars of a successful go-to-market strategy. Companies that invest in integrated product systems, targeted clinical programs, and strategic partnerships will be better positioned to gain share in high-value settings and to catalyze adoption across a range of end users and applications. Ultimately, disciplined execution across R&D, regulatory, and commercial functions will determine which organizations convert technical promise into lasting clinical impact.
Note: PDF & Excel + Online Access - 1 Year
A concise framing of how innovations in endoscopic closure technologies intersect with clinical needs regulatory pressures and evolving care delivery models
Endoscopic closure devices are central to the evolution of minimally invasive gastrointestinal and bariatric care, bridging technical capability with clinical outcomes and operational efficiency. Across clinical settings, clinicians seek closure solutions that reduce procedure time, lower complication rates, and support faster patient recovery. Innovations in device architecture, materials science, and delivery systems have accelerated the adoption of less invasive approaches, and as a result, device makers are increasingly focusing on integrated systems that combine closure performance with ease of use in routine practice.
Regulatory frameworks and payer expectations are simultaneously shaping product development priorities. Developers must demonstrate robust safety profiles, reproducible technique, and clear clinical value while navigating diverse regulatory pathways across jurisdictions. Consequently, clinical evidence generation, clinician training, and post-market surveillance have become core components of commercialization strategies. As the clinical landscape shifts toward outpatient procedures and value-based care, endoscopic closure device manufacturers are positioned to influence care pathways by aligning product design with economic, clinical, and operational imperatives.
How technological advances clinical practice patterns and reimbursement dynamics are reshaping the future of endoscopic closure device deployment
The landscape of endoscopic closure devices is undergoing transformative shifts driven by converging technological, clinical, and economic forces. Advances in materials and manufacturing have enabled devices that are stronger, more biocompatible, and more predictable in performance, prompting clinicians to expand indications and shorten learning curves. In parallel, imaging improvements and enhanced endoscopic platforms have enabled more precise placement and verification of closure devices, thereby improving procedural success and reducing secondary interventions.
Operationally, there is a clear movement toward outpatient and ambulatory settings, which places a premium on devices that support fast procedural throughput and predictable recovery profiles. Reimbursement landscapes and bundled payment models are also encouraging solutions that demonstrably reduce overall episode costs. Finally, the entry of robotics and digital-assisted endoscopy introduces new integration challenges and opportunities, as closure devices must now interoperate with advanced delivery systems and data-rich workflows, creating avenues for new value-added services and connectivity-driven differentiation.
Assessing how recent United States tariff adjustments have altered procurement, manufacturing cost structures, and supply chain resilience strategies among device makers
Policy changes in tariff regimes have created a ripple effect across global medical device supply chains, and the cumulative impact of tariff adjustments in the United States through 2025 has been particularly notable for components and raw materials used in endoscopic closure devices. Metal alloys, specialized polymers, and certain adhesive precursor chemicals are often sourced globally, and increased import duties raise input costs and compel manufacturers to reassess supplier relationships. When tariffs alter the cost structure, device makers face decisions about absorbing cost, passing it to purchasers, or seeking alternative sourcing strategies.
In response to tariff-driven pressures, many organizations have accelerated supply-chain resilience initiatives. Firms are evaluating nearshoring options, diversifying supplier bases, and increasing inventory buffers to mitigate volatility. For some players, vertical integration of critical components or establishing regional manufacturing footprints has become an attractive risk-management strategy that both reduces exposure to trade policy fluctuations and shortens lead times for clinical customers. Importantly, procurement and pricing teams must coordinate closely with regulatory and quality functions to ensure that any sourcing changes maintain compliance, performance consistency, and uninterrupted clinical availability.
Segment-driven priorities for product development commercialization and clinical adoption across product types, end users, applications, closure mechanisms, and material choices
A nuanced understanding of market segments is essential for product teams and commercialization leaders. Based on Product Type, market is studied across Clips, Sealants, and Sutures. The Clips is further studied across Metal Clips and Polymer Clips. The Sealants is further studied across Fibrin Sealants and Synthetic Adhesives. The Sutures is further studied across Absorbable Sutures and Non Absorbable Sutures. Each product category carries distinct development and regulatory considerations: clips emphasize mechanical retention and delivery profile, sealants prioritize adhesion chemistry and biocompatibility, and sutures balance handling characteristics with degradation profiles.
End users shape adoption velocity and purchasing behavior, and based on End User, market is studied across Ambulatory Surgical Centers, Clinics, and Hospitals. Ambulatory and clinic settings demand streamlined packaging and simplified deployment, while hospitals often require broader product portfolios and integrated inventory controls. Clinical applications influence design tradeoffs, and based on Application, market is studied across Bariatric and Gastrointestinal. Bariatric procedures may prioritize reinforced closure and staple-line adjuncts, whereas gastrointestinal applications require devices optimized for varied tissue thickness and lesion types.
Mechanism of closure defines the clinical workflow and training needs, and based on Closure Mechanism, market is studied across Adhesive Closure and Mechanical Closure. The Adhesive Closure is further studied across Injectable Adhesives and Topical Adhesives. The Mechanical Closure is further studied across Clip Closure and Suture Closure. Material choice underpins both performance and regulatory pathways, and based on Material, market is studied across Metal and Polymer. Metal materials often deliver durable mechanical strength and radiopacity, while polymeric solutions can offer flexibility, reduced artifact on imaging, and tailored biodegradation. Collectively, these segmentation dimensions inform product roadmaps, market entry sequencing, and clinician education programs.
Regional adoption patterns, regulatory nuances and commercialization levers shaping device strategy across the Americas, EMEA, and Asia-Pacific
Regional dynamics exert a strong influence on strategy, as adoption, reimbursement, and manufacturing footprints vary by geography. In the Americas, strong private and public payer systems, a high procedural volume environment, and established distribution networks create fertile ground for premiumized devices and rapid technology uptake, particularly in urban tertiary centers. This region also tends to lead on large-scale clinical trials and real-world evidence initiatives, which can accelerate broader acceptance of innovative closure modalities.
Regulatory frameworks and payer heterogeneity shape trajectories in Europe, Middle East & Africa, where national health systems, centralized approval pathways, and regional reimbursement variations necessitate tailored market entry approaches. Manufacturers often pursue country-by-country strategies that prioritize high-value markets while leveraging pan-European clinical data to support broader adoption. In Asia-Pacific, a mix of mature and emerging healthcare systems drives a dual strategy that balances cost-sensitive procurement with pockets of high adoption in advanced centers. Manufacturing localization, strategic partnerships, and targeted training programs frequently underpin successful expansion in this region, while regulatory harmonization efforts continue to influence timelines and go-to-market planning.
How competitive strategies, partnerships, and clinical collaborations are determining winners and challengers in the endoscopic closure device ecosystem
Competitive dynamics in the endoscopic closure device arena reflect both consolidation among established medtech firms and active innovation from smaller specialized companies. Large device manufacturers leverage scale, global distribution, and integrated product portfolios to bundle closure solutions with complementary endoscopic platforms. These organizations typically invest heavily in clinical evidence generation and post-market surveillance to support hospital purchasing committees and national tender processes. At the same time, nimble challengers and startups introduce differentiated materials, delivery mechanisms, and cost-efficient manufacturing processes that attract early adopters and strategic partners.
Collaboration between device makers and clinical centers has intensified, with co-development agreements, surgeon-inventor partnerships, and early feasibility trials facilitating iterative product refinement. Strategic licensing, acquisitions, and distribution partnerships remain common routes to scale, enabling innovators to access regulatory expertise, reimbursement pathways, and established sales channels. For incumbents, the imperative is to balance incremental product improvements with targeted acquisitions that add meaningful clinical differentiation, while for innovators the priority is demonstrating reproducible procedural benefits and creating clear value propositions for payers and providers.
Practical, high-impact strategic moves product leaders should implement now to strengthen innovation, supply resilience, and clinical adoption across markets
Industry leaders must adopt a multi-dimensional strategy to capture clinical and commercial value in the evolving endoscopic closure space. First, prioritize modular product architectures that can be adapted to different clinical contexts and delivery platforms, thereby expanding addressable use cases while containing development costs. Second, invest in robust clinical programs that demonstrate not only safety and efficacy but also operational advantages such as reduced procedure time, lower complication rates, and predictable recovery trajectories that resonate with payers and hospital administrators.
Third, strengthen supply chain resilience by diversifying sourcing, evaluating nearshoring opportunities, and establishing regional manufacturing where appropriate to mitigate tariff and transport risks. Fourth, integrate clinician training into commercialization plans through simulation-based modules, proctoring programs, and digital learning tools that shorten the adoption curve. Fifth, pursue strategic partnerships with endoscopy platform providers, imaging vendors, and adhesive chemistry specialists to create integrated solutions that are more difficult for competitors to replicate. Finally, align pricing and reimbursement strategies to local payment models and work proactively with health technology assessment bodies to highlight the economic and clinical case for adoption.
A rigorous mixed-methods research approach combining clinical expert interviews, targeted literature review, and cross-validated device categorization to ensure actionable insights
The research underpinning these insights combines qualitative and quantitative methods to ensure robustness and relevance. Primary research included structured interviews with clinicians, procurement leaders, and device development executives to capture frontline perspectives on device performance, unmet needs, and purchasing drivers. Secondary research comprised a targeted review of peer-reviewed clinical literature, regulatory filings, and device labeling to validate claims regarding safety profiles and intended use. Evidence from these sources was triangulated to reconcile disparate perspectives and prioritize high-impact trends.
Methodological rigor was maintained through systematic inclusion criteria for literature, transparency in interview guides, and cross-validation of findings across stakeholder groups. Device typologies were categorized based on mechanism, material, and clinical application to enable meaningful comparisons. Limitations and potential biases were acknowledged, and sensitivity checks were performed to assess the robustness of thematic conclusions. This layered approach ensures that recommendations are grounded in both real-world practice and the best available scientific evidence.
A concise conclusion emphasizing strategic alignment across innovation, clinical evidence, and supply resilience to convert opportunity into lasting clinical impact
In summary, the endoscopic closure device landscape presents substantial opportunity for organizations that align technological innovation with pragmatic clinical and commercial strategy. Advances in materials, delivery mechanisms, and imaging integration are expanding the envelope of what is clinically feasible, while payer and procedural trends are privileging solutions that deliver predictable outcomes and operational efficiency. However, policy changes and supply chain volatility require proactive mitigation measures and a willingness to adapt sourcing and manufacturing footprints.
Leaders should treat clinical evidence, clinician training, and supply resilience as equal pillars of a successful go-to-market strategy. Companies that invest in integrated product systems, targeted clinical programs, and strategic partnerships will be better positioned to gain share in high-value settings and to catalyze adoption across a range of end users and applications. Ultimately, disciplined execution across R&D, regulatory, and commercial functions will determine which organizations convert technical promise into lasting clinical impact.
Note: PDF & Excel + Online Access - 1 Year
Table of Contents
195 Pages
- 1. Preface
- 1.1. Objectives of the Study
- 1.2. Market Segmentation & Coverage
- 1.3. Years Considered for the Study
- 1.4. Currency
- 1.5. Language
- 1.6. Stakeholders
- 2. Research Methodology
- 3. Executive Summary
- 4. Market Overview
- 5. Market Insights
- 5.1. Integration of over-the-scope closure clips with real-time endoscopic imaging guidance for enhanced precision
- 5.2. Development of bioresorbable endoscopic suturing materials to minimize foreign body reactions
- 5.3. Adoption of robotic-assisted endoscopic suturing platforms to improve operator ergonomics and accuracy
- 5.4. Emergence of leak-sealing gel formulations for endoscopic application in gastrointestinal perforation management
- 5.5. Clinical validation of magnetically actuated tissue anchors for sutureless closure in endoluminal procedures
- 5.6. Implementation of AI-powered defect detection algorithms to guide targeted closure device deployment
- 5.7. Optimization of dual-channel endoscopes for simultaneous closure device insertion and intraoperative visualization
- 5.8. Growth of single-use disposable closure device systems to reduce cross-contamination risks in endoscopy units
- 6. Cumulative Impact of United States Tariffs 2025
- 7. Cumulative Impact of Artificial Intelligence 2025
- 8. Endoscopic Closure Devices Market, by Product Type
- 8.1. Clips
- 8.1.1. Metal Clips
- 8.1.2. Polymer Clips
- 8.2. Sealants
- 8.2.1. Fibrin Sealants
- 8.2.2. Synthetic Adhesives
- 8.3. Sutures
- 8.3.1. Absorbable Sutures
- 8.3.2. Non Absorbable Sutures
- 9. Endoscopic Closure Devices Market, by Closure Mechanism
- 9.1. Adhesive Closure
- 9.1.1. Injectable Adhesives
- 9.1.2. Topical Adhesives
- 9.2. Mechanical Closure
- 9.2.1. Clip Closure
- 9.2.2. Suture Closure
- 10. Endoscopic Closure Devices Market, by Material
- 10.1. Metal
- 10.2. Polymer
- 11. Endoscopic Closure Devices Market, by Application
- 11.1. Bariatric
- 11.2. Gastrointestinal
- 12. Endoscopic Closure Devices Market, by End User
- 12.1. Ambulatory Surgical Centers
- 12.2. Clinics
- 12.3. Hospitals
- 13. Endoscopic Closure Devices Market, by Region
- 13.1. Americas
- 13.1.1. North America
- 13.1.2. Latin America
- 13.2. Europe, Middle East & Africa
- 13.2.1. Europe
- 13.2.2. Middle East
- 13.2.3. Africa
- 13.3. Asia-Pacific
- 14. Endoscopic Closure Devices Market, by Group
- 14.1. ASEAN
- 14.2. GCC
- 14.3. European Union
- 14.4. BRICS
- 14.5. G7
- 14.6. NATO
- 15. Endoscopic Closure Devices Market, by Country
- 15.1. United States
- 15.2. Canada
- 15.3. Mexico
- 15.4. Brazil
- 15.5. United Kingdom
- 15.6. Germany
- 15.7. France
- 15.8. Russia
- 15.9. Italy
- 15.10. Spain
- 15.11. China
- 15.12. India
- 15.13. Japan
- 15.14. Australia
- 15.15. South Korea
- 16. Competitive Landscape
- 16.1. Market Share Analysis, 2024
- 16.2. FPNV Positioning Matrix, 2024
- 16.3. Competitive Analysis
- 16.3.1. Abbott Laboratories
- 16.3.2. Ackermann Instrumente GmbH
- 16.3.3. Ambu A/S
- 16.3.4. Apollo Endosurgery Inc
- 16.3.5. B. Braun Melsungen AG
- 16.3.6. Boston Scientific Corporation
- 16.3.7. Cardinal Health Inc
- 16.3.8. CONMED Corporation
- 16.3.9. Cook Medical LLC
- 16.3.10. CooperSurgical Inc
- 16.3.11. ENDO-FLEX GmbH
- 16.3.12. EndoGastric Solutions Inc
- 16.3.13. Ethicon Inc
- 16.3.14. Fujifilm Holdings Corporation
- 16.3.15. Hoya Corporation
- 16.3.16. Karl Storz SE & Co. KG
- 16.3.17. Medtronic plc
- 16.3.18. Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd.
- 16.3.19. Micro-Tech Endoscopy USA Inc
- 16.3.20. Olympus Corporation
- 16.3.21. Ovesco Endoscopy AG
- 16.3.22. Richard Wolf GmbH
- 16.3.23. Smith & Nephew plc
- 16.3.24. STERIS plc
- 16.3.25. Teleflex Inc
Pricing
Currency Rates
Questions or Comments?
Our team has the ability to search within reports to verify it suits your needs. We can also help maximize your budget by finding sections of reports you can purchase.
