Making joint preservation the default for younger people with knee osteoarthritis

Vitalis Ortho is a London-based company developing a joint-preserving device and treatment pathway for people with knee osteoarthritis who fall into the Treatment Gap [1].

Millions fall into the 'Treatment Gap'

Younger, more active patients with knee osteoarthritis are typically offered pain management. Once non-surgical treatments stop working, they are often still too young for joint replacement. This creates a Treatment Gap [1] defined by age as much as by disease severity.

375m

people worldwide live with knee osteoarthritis [2].

1 in 3

lifetime risk of revision after a knee replacement aged 55 or younger [3].

30-50%

of people have grade 2 to 4 isolated medial-compartment disease [4].

Why now?

01 Rising demand

Knee osteoarthritis cases are projected to rise by around 44% to 539m by 2035 [2].

02 Longer, more active lives

Patients expect to keep working, exercising, and caring for others beyond 60-years-of-age [1,3,5].

03 Pressure on health systems

Every knee replacement delayed in a younger patient, and every revision avoided, frees surgical capacity and cost [1,3,5,6].

A preservation-first, replace later approach

For younger patients

who are active but aren't candidates for knee replacement [1,3].

Preserve, not replace

the knee to address the Treatment Gap [1] and lifetime revision risk.

Keep every option open

for future treatment or knee replacement at a suitable age [3].

Our Team

Vitalis Ortho is led by Dr. Oliver Morgan and Dr. Mac Tuncer, who have already taken a MedTech company through to exit with the 2025 acquisition of Meshworks Implants. The team spans experts in human biomechanics, joint preserving surgery, and knee replacement, underpinned by first-class engineering talent and key opinion leaders.

Oliver Morgan, PhD

Co-founder & CEO

Mac Tuncer, PhD

Co-founder & CTO

Oliver Dandridge, PhD

Operations Engineer

Eric Roger Lawerence, MEng

Mechanical Engineer

[1] Khan, M. et al. (2018) 'Management of osteoarthritis of the knee in younger patients', CMAJ, 190(3), pp. E72–E79. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.170696.
[2] Chen, J. et al. (2025) 'Global burden of knee osteoarthritis from 1990 to 2021: trends, inequalities, and projections to 2035', PLOS ONE, 20(6), e0320115. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0320115.
[3] Bayliss, L.E. et al. (2017) 'The effect of patient age at intervention on risk of implant revision after total replacement of the hip or knee: a population-based cohort study', The Lancet, 389(10077), pp. 1424–1430. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30059-4.
[4] Stoddart, J.C. et al. (2021) 'The compartmental distribution of knee osteoarthritis – a systematic review and meta-analysis', Osteoarthritis and Cartilage, 29(4), pp. 445–455.
[5] Langworthy, M., Dasa, V. and Spitzer, A.I. (2024) 'Knee osteoarthritis: disease burden, available treatments, and emerging options', Therapeutic Advances in Musculoskeletal Disease, 16, 1759720X241273009. doi: 10.1177/1759720X241273009.
[6] Wu, S.A. et al. (2022) 'Comparing economic outcomes and reimbursement trends between primary total knee arthroplasty and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty', Journal of Orthopaedic Experience & Innovation, 3(1). doi: 10.60118/001c.30192.