A UK centre is turning laboratory discoveries in regenerative devices—scaffolds and biomaterials that trigger the body to repair its own tissues—into commercial products and patient treatments. The problem is a familiar one in medical technology: promising research often stalls before reaching industry, because the clinical need, market potential, and manufacturing pathway have not been defined. This centre bridges that gap. In its first phase, it built a systematic process for identifying research outputs, advancing them through early-stage development, and making them attractive for private investment and clinical trials. If this work succeeds, it could establish a sustainable UK pipeline for regenerative devices—products that repair wounds, cardiovascular tissue, musculoskeletal damage, and dental or facial bone defects using the patient’s own cells. That would shift regenerative medicine away from expensive cell-culture or drug-based therapies toward simpler, lower-cost implantable solutions. The impact would be felt in operating theatres, GP surgeries, and dental clinics, where surgeons could routinely implant materials that coax the body to heal itself, rather than relying on grafts or permanent prosthetics.
View original technical description
Regenerative devices (scaffolds, biomaterials and interventions) which can repair and regenerate tissues using the patients` own cells, can be translated into successful clinical products and deliver patient benefit at much lower cost and risk and in shorter timescales then other regenerative therapies such as culture expanded cell therapies or molecular (drug) therapies. It is estimated that the global market for regenerative devices will grow to £50bn by 2020 and this offers a real opportunity to grow a £1bn per year industry in the UK in this field. The UK has genuine research strengths in the areas of biomaterials and tissue engineering, musculoskeletal mechanics (prioritised by EPSRC) and regenerative medicine. Regenerative medicine is one of the eight great technologies prioritised across the Research Councils. Research discoveries, new knowledge, outputs and outcomes are often not ready for uptake by industry to take forward through product development to the market and patient benefit. New technologies need to be advanced and de-risked. The clinical needs, potential products and markets need to be defined in order to make them attractive for investment, product development and clinical trials by industry. In the Medical Technologies Innovation and Knowledge Centre (MTIKC) Phase 1, working with industry and clinical partners, we have developed a professional innovation team and a unique innovation and translation process, creating a multidisciplinary research and innovation ecosystem. We have successfully identified research outcomes and new knowledge and created, advanced and translated technology across the innovation valley of death, enabling successful investment (over £100m) by industry and the private sector in new product development. Some products have already progressed to clinical trials and commercialisation and are realising patient benefits. We have established a continuous innovation pipeline of over fifty proofs of concept technology projects. Over the next five years in MTIKC Phase 2, we will address unmet clinical needs and market opportunities in wound repair, cardiovascular repair, musculoskeletal tissue repair, maxillofacial reconstruction, dental reconstruction and general surgery and diversify our research supply chain to over ten other Universities. We will support 150 collaborative projects with industry and initiate forty new industry inspired and academically led proof of concept projects, which are predicted to lead to a further £100m investment by the private sector in subsequent product development. This will enable a sustainable research and product development pipeline to be established in the UK which will support a £1bn / year industry in regenerative devices beyond 2020.
Plain English summaries and category classifications on this site are generated by AI and may not perfectly reflect the original research.
Is something wrong? Let us know