활액낭염 치료 시장 : 치료법별, 제품 카테고리별, 적용 부위별, 최종사용자별 - 세계 예측(2025-2032년)

The Bursitis Treatment Market is projected to grow by USD 11.82 billion at a CAGR of 4.77% by 2032.

A concise introduction to bursitis treatment pathways, patient burden, multidisciplinary care, and the systemic forces shaping contemporary clinical practice

Bursitis represents a common yet often underestimated source of pain and functional limitation across diverse patient populations. In clinical practice, presentations range from acute inflammatory flares to chronic, activity-limiting conditions that impair work performance and recreational participation. Management strategies span conservative self-care measures, pharmacologic treatment, image-guided injections, rehabilitative interventions, and, in select cases, surgical procedures. Demographic shifts such as population aging, rising participation in endurance and high-impact sports, and persistent rates of comorbid metabolic and rheumatologic conditions have collectively increased the complexity of care pathways for this condition.

In addition, evolving expectations around rapid recovery, minimally invasive approaches, and minimized opioid exposure shape both clinician decision-making and payer scrutiny. Care delivery has also been altered by expanded remote care modalities; patients increasingly seek timely advice and guided rehabilitation that reduce the need for in-person visits. Moreover, the growing emphasis on outcomes, functional restoration, and cost-effective care has prompted multidisciplinary collaboration among primary care physicians, orthopedic specialists, physiotherapists, and pain management teams. This introduction sets the stage for a deeper examination of market dynamics, treatment innovations, reimbursement influences, and operational pressures that together define the contemporary landscape of bursitis treatment.

Transformative clinical, technological, and supply dynamics that are redefining treatment decisions, care delivery models, and stakeholder incentives in bursitis management

Over the last several years, the treatment landscape for bursitis has undergone substantive transformation driven by clinical innovation, care delivery evolution, and shifting stakeholder expectations. Advances in regenerative medicine and targeted biologic therapies have introduced alternatives to traditional corticosteroid approaches, while improved imaging techniques and ultrasound guidance have increased the precision and safety of injectable interventions. Concurrently, minimally invasive surgical techniques, particularly arthroscopic methods, have refined indications for operative management and reduced convalescence times for appropriate candidates.

Complementing therapeutic innovation, digital health enablers such as tele-rehabilitation platforms, remote monitoring, and patient-facing education tools have extended the reach of physical therapy and self-management programs. These tools are increasingly integrated into care pathways to support adherence to exercise therapy, facilitate clinician oversight, and provide real-time feedback on recovery trajectories. On the payer and provider sides, value-based contracting and outcome-focused procurement pressures are incentivizing evidence generation and cost-effectiveness studies, which in turn shape adoption patterns. Finally, supply chain volatility and an increased emphasis on domestic resilience are causing manufacturers and health systems to reassess sourcing strategies for implants, injectables, and home-care devices. Taken together, these shifts are moving the field toward more personalized, data-driven, and care-continuum-oriented approaches that prioritize measurable functional outcomes and patient experience.

How recent United States tariff measures are reshaping procurement, pricing pressures, supply resilience, and therapeutic availability across bursitis care pathways

Recent tariff changes in the United States have reverberated through the medical supply and pharmaceutical value chains, producing cumulative effects that influence treatment availability, procurement practices, and cost structures. Tariffs that affect imported medical devices, injectables, and biologic inputs increase the landed cost of certain products, prompting supply chain actors to reassess sourcing strategies. Consequently, some manufacturers and distributors have accelerated diversification of supplier networks, considered nearshoring or reshoring critical components, and negotiated alternative commercial terms to preserve margins and maintain consistent availability to providers.

Clinically, these procurement responses can influence the mix of therapies offered: higher device or biologic costs may lead health systems and outpatient centers to re-evaluate formularies and standard operating procedures, favoring therapeutics with stronger cost-effectiveness evidence or lower logistic complexity. For home-care modalities and over-the-counter products, tariff-driven price pressures can affect retail pricing and patient out-of-pocket burdens, which in turn shape adherence to noninvasive regimens. Additionally, tariff-induced cost volatility encourages buyers to leverage longer-term contracting, group purchasing organizations, and strategic inventory buffering to mitigate disruption.

At a strategic level, renewed policy-driven cost pressures stimulate investment in domestic manufacturing capacity, increase interest in alternative materials and technologies that bypass tariffed inputs, and intensify collaboration between clinicians, supply chain managers, and procurement teams. While tariffs do not directly change clinical efficacy, their secondary effects on availability, pricing, and procurement behavior can alter the landscape in which therapeutic choices are made, emphasizing resilience, evidence-backed value, and strategic contracting as key mitigation levers.

Clear segmentation-driven insights into therapeutic modalities, product classes, anatomical applications, and care settings that explain adoption patterns and clinical workflows

A granular segmentation lens reveals important nuances in how treatments are applied, which stakeholders are most active, and where innovation is concentrated. When treatments are viewed through the prism of therapy modality, care ranges from home-based measures-such as ice therapy, rest and immobilization, and warm compress applications-through pharmacologic approaches that include both over-the-counter and prescription nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, to injectable therapies where corticosteroid injections remain a mainstay and emerging options include hyaluronic acid and platelet-rich plasma therapy. Physical therapy practices encompass cryotherapy, exercise therapy, and manual therapy, while surgical interventions are generally divided between arthroscopic and open surgical approaches. Each of these subsegments demonstrates distinct patterns: conservative home care and oral medication often serve as initial steps that prioritize accessibility and low cost, whereas injectable therapy and surgical intervention are typically pursued when symptoms persist or functional goals demand more aggressive management.

From a product-category perspective, antibiotics, biologics, corticosteroids, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs play discrete roles with differing regulatory profiles, evidence requirements, and distribution pathways. Biologics and advanced regenerative products, for example, require distinct cold-chain logistics and clinical training for administration compared with small-molecule NSAIDs. Considering anatomical application sites, treatment selection is influenced by structural variation across the elbow, heel, hip, knee, and shoulder; site-specific biomechanical demands and patient activity levels drive clinical decision-making and rehabilitation planning. Finally, the end-user landscape spans ambulatory surgical centers, home care settings, hospitals, orthopedic clinics, and sports medicine centers, each with unique purchasing processes, clinical workflows, and volume profiles. Understanding how these segmentation axes interact is essential for tailoring clinical protocols, commercial strategies, and evidence-generation programs to real-world use cases.

Key regional distinctions in practice patterns, reimbursement realities, regulatory pathways, and supply chain factors that influence clinical adoption across major global markets

Regional dynamics materially influence how bursitis is diagnosed, treated, and reimbursed, with distinct patterns emerging across major geographies. In the Americas, care delivery often emphasizes rapid access to interventional procedures and well-established outpatient pathways; private payer mix and ambulatory surgical center growth shape the distribution of injectable therapies and arthroscopic procedures. Moving to Europe, Middle East & Africa, practice variation is greater due to heterogeneous reimbursement systems, regulatory regimes, and access to advanced biologics; in many markets, centralized procurement and national guideline alignment influence the uptake of higher-cost therapeutics, and public systems play an outsized role in defining standard of care. Across the Asia-Pacific region, demographic trends-such as rapidly aging populations in some countries and high sports participation in others-drive demand for both conservative and interventional approaches, while manufacturing hubs and regional supply chains influence availability and pricing dynamics.

Across all regions, the pace of digital adoption, tele-rehabilitation, and training for ultrasound-guided injections varies, affecting the extent to which remote care or image-guided interventions are integrated into routine practice. Moreover, regional regulatory pathways for novel biologics and cell-based therapies determine the speed with which evidence is translated into clinical availability. Trade policies and logistics infrastructure further modulate the reliability of product supply, and regional differences in clinical guideline development and specialist density shape where care is concentrated, whether that be in hospital systems, specialty clinics, or community-based settings.

Insightful analysis of competitive roles, strategic partnerships, and evidence-driven differentiation shaping the commercial landscape for bursitis therapeutics and services

Competitive dynamics within the bursitis treatment ecosystem reflect a heterogeneous mix of established pharmaceutical manufacturers, medical device companies, specialty biologics and regenerative medicine developers, digital health vendors, and service providers that support distribution and clinical training. Incumbent players continue to leverage scale, clinical relationships, and broad product portfolios to maintain access across hospitals and ambulatory centers, while smaller specialty firms focus on niche innovations-particularly in regenerative injections, point-of-care biologic processing, and novel delivery systems. At the same time, digital therapeutics and tele-rehabilitation suppliers are increasing their relevance by enabling long-term adherence to exercise therapy and facilitating remote clinician oversight.

Strategic behavior includes targeted partnerships between device or biologic developers and clinical networks to generate real-world evidence and to accelerate guideline adoption. Contract manufacturing organizations and logistics specialists also play a pivotal role, particularly for temperature-sensitive biologics and single-use procedural kits. Across the competitive landscape, differentiation increasingly depends on the strength and transparency of clinical evidence, the quality of training and clinician support programs, and the ability to demonstrate consistent outcomes in routine practice. Companies that can integrate evidence generation with pragmatic implementation support, while also addressing payer concerns regarding cost-effectiveness, are positioned to gain preferential access to procurement decision-makers and long-term contracts.

Practical and evidence-focused strategic recommendations for manufacturers, providers, and payers to enhance clinical value, supply resilience, and patient-centered outcomes

Industry leaders and clinical program directors should adopt a multi-pronged strategy to capture clinical value, improve patient outcomes, and mitigate commercial risk. First, prioritizing high-quality evidence generation for novel injectables and regenerative options is essential; randomized controlled trials complemented by pragmatic real-world studies will support payer engagement and guideline inclusion. Second, diversifying supply chains and exploring nearshoring options for critical components can reduce exposure to tariff volatility and shipping disruptions, while strategic contracting with group purchasers can stabilize pricing and availability. Third, investing in clinician education and structured implementation programs for ultrasound-guided injections and minimally invasive procedures will facilitate appropriate adoption and reduce variability in outcomes.

Additionally, integrating tele-rehabilitation and patient-facing adherence tools into care pathways can improve functional recovery rates and reduce downstream utilization of invasive procedures. Value-based contracting models that link reimbursement to patient-reported outcomes and functional benchmarks should be explored with payers to align incentives around meaningful recovery. Finally, companies and providers should develop clear, patient-centered communication frameworks to set expectations for recovery timelines, nonpharmacologic management, and the trade-offs between short-term symptom relief and longer-term tissue healing, thereby enhancing shared decision-making and adherence to conservative regimens when appropriate.

A rigorous mixed-methods research methodology combining expert interviews, clinical literature synthesis, supply chain analysis, and utilization data triangulation to ensure robust findings

The research underpinning these insights combined a layered methodology designed to triangulate clinical practice patterns, procurement behaviors, and innovation trends. Primary inputs included structured interviews with orthopedists, physiotherapists, interventional pain specialists, ambulatory surgery managers, and payer medical directors to capture frontline perspectives on treatment selection, barriers to adoption, and operational constraints. Secondary analysis drew upon peer-reviewed clinical literature, professional society guidelines, and regulatory filings to assess the comparative evidence base for pharmacologic, injectable, rehabilitative, and surgical approaches. Supply chain mapping and trade data reviews were used to understand sourcing vulnerabilities and the potential impacts of tariff shifts on component availability.

Wherever possible, qualitative findings were cross-checked with anonymized claims and utilization datasets to validate patterns of service delivery and care transitions. The methodology prioritized transparency about limitations: for example, national-level heterogeneity in coding practices can complicate cross-country comparisons, and emerging biologic technologies may lack long-term outcome data. Ethical safeguards included informed consent for interviews and de-identification of proprietary procurement information. Taken together, this mixed-methods approach offers a robust foundation for the insights presented while acknowledging areas where further prospective data collection would strengthen causal inference.

Concluding synthesis highlighting the intersection of clinical innovation, care delivery transformation, payer pressures, and supply resilience shaping future bursitis care

In summary, the management of bursitis is being reshaped by converging forces: therapeutic innovation in biologics and image-guided interventions; expanding capability for remote and home-based care; heightened payer emphasis on outcomes and cost-effectiveness; and supply chain pressures that influence product availability and pricing. These dynamics create both challenges and opportunities for stakeholders across the clinical and commercial spectrum. Clinicians are tasked with integrating new modalities while maintaining evidence-based pathways, manufacturers must demonstrate clear comparative value, and health systems need to design resilient procurement strategies that support consistent access to a full continuum of care.

Moving forward, the most successful programs will be those that align rigorous clinical evidence with pragmatic implementation supports, leverage digital tools to enhance recovery and adherence, and proactively manage supply risk through diversified sourcing and strategic contracting. By focusing on measurable functional outcomes and patient-centered care, stakeholders can improve recovery trajectories while ensuring sustainable delivery models that are responsive to evolving regulatory and commercial conditions.

Table of Contents

1. Preface

• 1.1. Objectives of the Study
• 1.2. Market Segmentation & Coverage
• 1.3. Years Considered for the Study
• 1.4. Currency & Pricing
• 1.5. Language
• 1.6. Stakeholders

2. Research Methodology

3. Executive Summary

4. Market Overview

5. Market Insights

• 5.1. Rising use of ultrasound-guided corticosteroid injections to improve bursitis treatment precision
• 5.2. Expansion of minimally invasive needle fenestration techniques to accelerate bursa healing and reduce recovery time
• 5.3. Development of novel hyaluronic acid formulations targeting shoulder and hip bursitis pain relief with longer duration
• 5.4. Integration of wearable motion sensors for real-time monitoring of joint stress in bursitis rehabilitation protocols
• 5.5. Increasing interest in platelet-rich plasma therapies for refractory bursitis cases among sports medicine practitioners
• 5.6. Growth of home-use cold compression systems enhanced by smart temperature control to manage bursitis inflammation

6. Cumulative Impact of United States Tariffs 2025

7. Cumulative Impact of Artificial Intelligence 2025

8. Bursitis Treatment Market, by Treatment Type

• 8.1. Home Care
  • 8.1.1. Ice Therapy
  • 8.1.2. Rest Immobilization
  • 8.1.3. Warm Compress
• 8.2. Injectable Therapy
  • 8.2.1. Corticosteroid Injections
  • 8.2.2. Hyaluronic Acid Injections
  • 8.2.3. Platelet-Rich Plasma Therapy
• 8.3. Oral Medication
  • 8.3.1. Over-The-Counter Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs
  • 8.3.2. Prescription Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs
• 8.4. Physical Therapy
  • 8.4.1. Cryotherapy
  • 8.4.2. Exercise Therapy
  • 8.4.3. Manual Therapy
• 8.5. Surgical Intervention
  • 8.5.1. Arthroscopic Surgery
  • 8.5.2. Open Surgery

9. Bursitis Treatment Market, by Product Category

• 9.1. Antibiotics
• 9.2. Biologics
• 9.3. Corticosteroids
• 9.4. Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs

10. Bursitis Treatment Market, by Application Site

• 10.1. Elbow
• 10.2. Heel
• 10.3. Hip
• 10.4. Knee
• 10.5. Shoulder

11. Bursitis Treatment Market, by End User

• 11.1. Ambulatory Surgical Centers
• 11.2. Home Care Settings
• 11.3. Hospitals
• 11.4. Orthopedic Clinics
• 11.5. Sports Medicine Centers

12. Bursitis Treatment Market, by Region

• 12.1. Americas
  • 12.1.1. North America
  • 12.1.2. Latin America
• 12.2. Europe, Middle East & Africa
  • 12.2.1. Europe
  • 12.2.2. Middle East
  • 12.2.3. Africa
• 12.3. Asia-Pacific

13. Bursitis Treatment Market, by Group

• 13.1. ASEAN
• 13.2. GCC
• 13.3. European Union
• 13.4. BRICS
• 13.5. G7
• 13.6. NATO

14. Bursitis Treatment Market, by Country

• 14.1. United States
• 14.2. Canada
• 14.3. Mexico
• 14.4. Brazil
• 14.5. United Kingdom
• 14.6. Germany
• 14.7. France
• 14.8. Russia
• 14.9. Italy
• 14.10. Spain
• 14.11. China
• 14.12. India
• 14.13. Japan
• 14.14. Australia
• 14.15. South Korea

15. Competitive Landscape

• 15.1. Market Share Analysis, 2024
• 15.2. FPNV Positioning Matrix, 2024
• 15.3. Competitive Analysis
  • 15.3.1. Pfizer Inc.
  • 15.3.2. Bayer AG
  • 15.3.3. Johnson & Johnson
  • 15.3.4. Novartis AG
  • 15.3.5. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.
  • 15.3.6. GlaxoSmithKline plc
  • 15.3.7. Sanofi S.A.
  • 15.3.8. Merck & Co., Inc.
  • 15.3.9. Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc.
  • 15.3.10. Stryker Corporation