Revision Arthroplasty Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
- Filing peaked in 2021 at 17 records and fell to 4 by 2024, a -76% swing that predates any publication-lag effect in 2025-2026.
- The top 5 assignees hold 60.3% of all 131 records and the top 10 hold 83.2% — concentration is heavy even though 25 companies appear in the ranking.
- A61B and A61F cover roughly two-thirds of records each while sterilising (A61L) and data-processing (G06F) classes sit far behind, marking where claim density thins out.
Filing growth compares 2021 (17 records) with 2024 (4) — a three-year span. 2024 is the most recent year we treat as complete: publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so 2025 onwards are still filling in and any growth rate that ends there would understate the field. Top-5 share is the combined record count of the five largest assignees divided by all 131 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
Revision arthroplasty and periprosthetic bone defect reconstruction sits at the intersection of implant removal, metaphyseal cone and augment fixation, impaction grafting, and bone-loss classification workflows. The search scope combines these clinical routes with the underlying surgical and prosthetic devices that support them, capturing 131 published records filed between 2015 and mid-2026. Because publication trails filing by roughly 18 months, the most recent one to two years in any trend understate real filing activity.
The dataset spans surgical technique claims, cone and augment hardware, liner constraint mechanisms and adjunct data tools, with receiving offices concentrated in the United States, followed by Europe, the WIPO PCT route, Australia, Austria and the United Kingdom.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 131-record dataset: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses the records fall into. Because a single record can carry several IPC codes, the technology shares add up to more than 100% of records.
Filing trend, 2017-2026
Filings rose from 5 in 2017 to a peak of 17 in 2021, then declined to 4 by 2024 — a -76% move over that three-year span. 2025 and 2026 figures are still filling in as publications catch up with filing dates, so they should not be read as a continued decline.
IPC subclass distribution
A61B (diagnosis & surgery) and A61F (implants & prostheses) each cover roughly six in ten records, confirming that surgical technique and hardware claims dominate. A61L (sterilising), G06F (digital data processing), A61N, B23K and G01N appear in single-digit-percentage shares, marking the thinner, more open branches of the field.
Shares are the percentage of the 131 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Revision Arthroplasty and Bone Defect Reconstruction with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about revision arthroplasty and bone defect reconstruction and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaMost-cited records in the corpus
A revision-implant receiver and method of use thereof
Filed by MatOrtho in August 2020, this record describes a receiver mechanism for revision-implant components — a concrete example of the hardware-interface claims that sit alongside the more heavily cited thermal-bonding and body-parameter filings in this corpus.Record ID and filing date are shown in the table above.
View full record| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20080021474A1 | Methods and devices for intracorporeal bonding of implants with thermal energy | 321 |
| 2 | US20080039845A1 | Methods and devices for intracorporeal bonding of implants with thermal energy | 257 |
| 3 | WO2007092869A2 | Methods and devices for intracorporeal bonding of implants with thermal energy | 176 |
| 4 | WO2008116203A2 | Methods and devices for intracorporeal bonding or interlocking of implants with thermal energy | 170 |
| 5 | US20110213221A1 | Method for Detecting Body Parameters | 145 |
| 6 | EP1988837A2 | Methods and devices for intracorporeal bonding of implants with thermal energy | 94 |
| 7 | US20150250601A1 | Instruments and techniques for orienting prosthesis components for joint prostheses | 93 |
| 8 | EP2134294A2 | Methods and devices for intracorporeal bonding or interlocking of implants with thermal energy | 83 |
| 9 | CA2641580A1 | Methods and devices for intracorporeal bonding of implants with thermal energy | 76 |
| 10 | CA2680827A1 | Methods and devices for intracorporeal bonding or interlocking of implants with thermal energy | 57 |
Citation counts reward older filings that have had more time to accumulate references within the searched corpus — read them as a signal of historical influence, not of current commercial relevance.
Each row carries its publication number; clicking a row searches Eureka by that number.
Put your own technology through the same analysis
Eureka on the web
When you want the answer in the next five minutes.
The agent works the prompt against patents and technical literature, citing every source.
Run your analysis now →MCP server & REST API
When it has to run inside your own pipeline.
Patent search, landscape analysis and assignee resolution as MCP tools. Drop them into any agent framework, or call REST directly.
Browse MCP servers →What the data means for filing strategy
Three findings stand out once the ranking, trend and IPC shares are read together: concentration at the top, a technology mix skewed toward surgical hardware, and a filing peak that has since cooled off.
A small group holds most of the claim space
With the top 5 assignees accounting for 60.3% of all 131 records and the top 10 reaching 83.2%, new entrants face dense prior art wherever the leaders already file. The remaining 15 companies in the 25-company ranking each hold a much smaller share, forming a long tail rather than a second tier of comparable size.
Surgical technique and hardware claims run neck and neck
A61B (diagnosis & surgery) and A61F (implants & prostheses) each cover a similar majority of records, showing that method-of-use and physical-device claims are filed together rather than separately. Sterilising, data-processing and electrotherapy classes trail well behind, at 13.7% or less each.
Activity has cooled from its 2021 peak
Filings rose steadily to a 2021 peak of 17, then fell to 4 by 2024 — a decline that is real and measurable across complete years, unlike the partial 2025-2026 data still filling in behind the 18-month publication lag.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to revision arthroplasty and bone defect reconstruction, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and where the gaps sit
The assignee ranking covers 25 companies total — not a top-50 or top-100 cut — with a leader at 30 records, fifth place at 10, and tenth place at 5. Momentum has cooled broadly: several previously active assignees show zero filings in the latest year, consistent with the overall post-2021 decline.
The top filer holds a wide lead over the rest of the top 5
The leading assignee's 30 records are three times the fifth-place count of 10, indicating one company has built a substantially deeper portfolio than its closest peers rather than the field being evenly split among a handful of firms.
Beyond the top 10, filings thin out quickly
Tenth place sits at only 5 records, and the ranking runs to 25 companies in total — a pattern consistent with a field where a handful of established players set the pace and most other entrants file opportunistically rather than sustaining a program.
A small inventor cluster drives several of the densest filings
The corpus shows 9 co-assignee pairs, with the strongest pairings — linking the same small group of individual inventors — each sharing 8 records. That clustering suggests a tight internal team rather than broad cross-company collaboration.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| P TECH LLC | 0 | — |
| Think Surgical Inc | 0 | — |
| BEHZADI KAMBIZ | 0 | — |
| ROCHE MARTIN W | 0 | — |
| HETTWER HLDG APS | 0 | — |
| MATORTHO | 0 | — |
| CREMENS MATTHEW J | 0 | — |
| BONUTTI PETER M | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The figures above establish concentration, technology mix and momentum. Turning that into a filing or freedom-to-operate decision means drilling into specific claim sets and the sub-areas the ranking leaders have not yet covered densely.
Map claims against the leader's portfolio
Pull the full claim set behind the top assignee's 30 records to see exactly which cone, augment and liner mechanisms are already occupied before drafting new claims in the same space.
Explore assignee portfolios in EurekaCheck the under-claimed branches directly
The gate chips above point to sterilisation and digital classification sub-areas with thin IPC coverage — worth a dedicated prior-art search before committing R&D time.
Run a white space search in EurekaWatch for the 2025-2026 publication catch-up
Because publication lags filing by about 18 months, re-check the 2021-2024 momentum figures once later years complete to confirm whether the decline is holding or reversing.
Set up a filing alert in EurekaCommon questions on this landscape
The assignee ranking behind this dataset covers 25 companies, and the leader holds 30 of the 131 records in scope — well ahead of the fifth-place company at 10 records. The top 5 assignees combined account for 60.3% of all records, and the top 10 account for 83.2%, so filing activity is concentrated among a small group rather than spread evenly. Anyone evaluating freedom to operate in this space should start by reviewing the leader's portfolio in detail, since it represents nearly a quarter of everything filed.
Filings rose from 5 in 2017 to a peak of 17 in 2021, then declined to 4 by 2024 — a -76% drop across that three-year window using only complete filing years. Figures for 2025 and 2026 are still incomplete because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so they should not yet be read as a continuation of the decline. The honest read is that activity cooled substantially after 2021, with the most recent trend still to be confirmed.
A61B (diagnosis and surgery) and A61F (implants and prostheses) are by far the largest categories, covering 63.4% and 61.8% of the 131 records respectively. Sterilising and disinfecting technology (A61L) trails at 13.7%, and digital data processing (G06F) sits at 6.1%, with electrotherapy, welding and material-testing classes each below 3%. Because records often carry more than one IPC code, these shares overlap rather than summing to a clean 100%, reflecting how surgical technique and hardware claims are typically filed together.
GB202010084D0, filed by MatOrtho in August 2020, describes a revision-implant receiver and a method of using it — a mechanism for interfacing with existing revision hardware during a follow-up procedure. It sits within the broader cone, augment and liner interface space that this dataset shows is already densely claimed by the leading assignees. Anyone designing a similar receiver mechanism should review this record's specific claim language directly, since receiver-and-method claims of this type can be narrow enough to design around or broad enough to block, depending on the exact wording.
The IPC composition points to sterilisation protocols for porous augment materials and digital bone-loss classification tools as comparatively thin branches, since A61L and G06F each cover well under a quarter of records against A61B and A61F's roughly two-thirds. Impaction grafting delivery instrumentation and constrained liner locking mechanisms also show lower filing density relative to the clinical need described in the search scope. These are not guarantees of an open field, but they are the sub-areas least covered by the concentration sitting at the top of the assignee ranking.
Research Revision Arthroplasty and Bone Defect Reconstruction in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole revision arthroplasty and bone defect reconstruction corpus yourself, in your own scope.
Every answer comes back with patent numbers you can open.
Disclaimer. This page is generated from Patsnap Eureka data drawn from a limited snapshot of global patent and scientific-literature records, and is provided for general information and reference only.
Patent data carries inherent limitations: recent filings (typically the most recent 18–24 months) are under-counted due to standard publication lag; counts may be reported at either a patent-family or a patent-record basis and are not always directly comparable; classification, applicant-name, and citation data may contain errors, duplicates, or omissions; and the underlying search query defines and constrains the scope shown. As a result, the analysis may be incomplete or inaccurate and may not reflect the full technology landscape.
Nothing on this page constitutes an exhaustive prior-art, novelty, freedom-to-operate, or validity search, nor does it constitute legal, financial, investment, or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon as such. Any patent, commercial, or strategic decision should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent, legal, and domain professionals. Patsnap makes no warranties, express or implied, as to the accuracy, completeness, or fitness for any particular purpose of the information presented.
Machine translation. Assignee and organisation names originally recorded in Chinese, Japanese or Korean have been rendered into English by an AI translation step so that the tables stay readable. These renderings are best-effort and may not match a company’s registered English name; the original name is what the underlying patent record carries, and it is what any Eureka query launched from this page uses.