Open Access

ARTICLE

Venture capital investment in urology, 2011 to mid-2021

Logan G. Briggs^1,*, Nishant Uppal^2,*, Björn Langbein³, Naeem Bhojani⁴, Martin Kathrins³, Quoc-Dien Trinh³

1 Department of Urology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona, USA
2 Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
3 Division of Urology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
4 Department of Surgery, University of Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
* Contributed equally to this manuscript.
Address correspondence to Dr. Logan G. Briggs, Department of Urology, Mayo Clinic, 5777 E. Mayo Blvd, Phoenix, AZ 85054 USA

Canadian Journal of Urology 2023, 30(5), 11659-11667.

Abstract

Introduction: To characterize venture capital (VC) investments in urology in the past decade that represent promising innovations in early-stage companies.
Materials and methods: A retrospective analysis of deals made between VC investors and urologic companies from January 1, 2011, through June 28, 2021, was conducted by using a financial database (PitchBook Platform, PitchBook Data Inc). Data on urologic company and investor names; company information and funding categories (surgical device, therapeutic device, drug discovery/pharmaceutical, and health care technology companies); and deal sizes (in US dollars) and dates were abstracted and aggregated. Descriptive and linear regression analyses were conducted.
Results: Urology-related VC funding fluctuated from 2011 through mid-2021, but no substantial change was observed in funding over time. In total, 191 distinct deals were made involving urologic companies, totaling $1.1 billion. The four largest funding categories together accounted for $848 million and comprised therapeutic devices ($373 million), surgical devices ($187 million), drug discovery/pharmaceuticals ($185 million), and health care technology ($102 million). At least $450 million (41% of total investments) was invested in companies developing minimally invasive surgical devices.
Conclusions: Urologic VC investments did not increase in the past decade and were allocated more toward devices than pharmaceuticals or health care technology. Given relative patterns within urology, VC investments may shift toward health care technology and away from pharmaceuticals but remain stable for devices. Further investments in promising technologies may help urologists more effectively manage urologic disease while optimizing outcomes.

---

Keywords

---