View Full Version : Inqu v/s BMP

12-02-2015, 02:33 PM
Has anyone heard of Inqu? I had a med rep come for a meeting today who brought up this product and compared it to BMP but with better results and more cost effective. In fact it is approved for use from cervical to lumbar to foot and arm. Just curious as to anyone that has had it used or had any research on it. It is made by a company based in Saint Louis of doctors and researchers from Wash U called Isto Technologies.


green m&m
12-02-2015, 05:19 PM
On a quick glance at what Inqu is, I personally don't think the two can be compared fairly.

Inqu seems to be a bone extender/matrix, an acellular substitute for demineralized bone matrix (DBM) products while BMP is a growth factor. It's scaffolding more than anything. PLGA is often used in implantable products that biodegrade, for example in a two-part self-gripping hernia mesh where the grips biodegrade and leave only the mesh sheet, and the other compound HyA -Hyaluronic acid. Variation of HyA is used in synthetic synovial fluid for osteoarthritic knee joints.... so Inqu is a synthetic matrix impregnated with,... goo?

I don't know about 'better' than BMP. Maybe in some ways better than DBM, but don't know how to compare it to BMP. Apples and oranges...

It probably is cheaper though and less 'off putting' to some than demineralized bone matrix.

12-02-2015, 05:23 PM
Very good points. The big thing he kept talking about it the fact of that during irrigation that BMP can become displaced while Inqu supposedly stays in place. He is used to dealing with Spinal Doctors so he kept using that as the example and reference even though I am part of a Podiatric practice. He is new to the feet arena, lol! I found it an interesting topic. :)