With the umbilical cord as its primary platform, the NEOX family of products are used to manage chronic and complex wounds. NEOX is designed to meet the needs of clinicians and patients and comes in a variety of sizes, formulations and storage options.
We are proud to launch our #WoundCareWarriors campaign to raise awareness, featuring the health care professionals who treat chronic and complex wounds and highlighting the use of Cryopreserved Umbilical Cord Allograft as an adjunct therapy to promote wound healing.Find out more
The ultimate combination of components from the same inner cell mass of the embryo with optimal processing and biological source, NEOX CORD 1K is Cryopreserved Umbilical Cord and Amniotic Membrane.
Extensive scientific and clinical, and scientific research on an ocular wound surface has shown placental tissue are suitable to manage inflammation in the wound, facilitate cell and proliferation and create an environment for tissue regeneration.
More Persistent: Additionally, NEOX CORD 1K is up to 10x thicker than amniotic membrane, which may increase longevity in the wound bed, leading to fewer applications and lower cost of care.
NEOX CORD 1K has demonstrated consistently high closure rates in real-world experiences.
Where refrigeration is a barrier, NEOX CORD RT offers the properties of umbilical cord with the convenience of room temperature storage.
Our proprietary STERITEK® preservation process maintains the critical components of native tissue, delivering the benefits of the innate structural and functional biology of the natural tissue to the wound.
NEOX CORD RT is the only hydrated shelf stable umbilical cord product on the market.
Ideal for shallow wounds or for larger wound areas, NEOX 100 is the convenient cryopreserved amniotic membrane product – it can be stored in a standard refrigerator.
For more information about storage, visit the Packaging & Storage page.
Mark Couture DPM
A total of 57 patients presenting with 64 chronic wounds who received treatment with cUC and were treated by the same surgeon at a single wound care center were analyzed.
The average initial wound area was 6.85cm2 ± 16.29cm2. Overall, 51 of 64 wounds achieved complete healing, resulting in an overall wound-healing rate of 79.7%. For wounds that healed, the average wound-healing time was 1.6 and 5.53 ± 2.42 applications of cUC were used.
Allen Raphael DPM
J Wound Care. 2016 Jul 1;25(Sup7):S10-S17
A total of 32 wounds in 29 patients treated with cUC by a single physician were analyzed. The average initial wound area for all wounds was 10.6 ± 2.15cm2. Of the 32 wounds, 28 achieved complete epithelialization for an overall healing rate of 87.5%. Average time to wound closure was 13.8 ± 1.95 weeks with a median of 10 weeks and an average of 1.68 ± 0.18 cUC applications.
Wayne Caputo DPM
Wound Repair Regen. 2016 Sept 24(5)
A retrospective review was performed to assess healing of 31 patients presenting with 33 complex foot ulcers with a confirmed histopathological diagnosis of osteomyelitis treated by the same surgeon at a single wound care center by the following treatment regimen: sharp debridement, resection of the infected bone when necessary, open cortex, antibiotics, and application of cryopreserved umbilical cord (cUC). The average ulcer size was 15.6617.7 cm2 (0.4-73.95 cm2). Overall, 26 out of the 33 wounds achieved complete closure (78.8%). Five patients were lost to follow-up and one patient expired during the course of treatment, not believed to be treatment-related. Of the remaining 27 wounds in patients not lost to follow up, 26 achieved complete healing with an average time to healing of 16 weeks and an average of 1.24 applications of cUC.
1 Caputo WJ et al. Wound Repair Regen. 2016 Sept 24(5). [online]
2 Couture M. Wounds. 2016 Jul;28(7):217-25. [online]
3 Raphael A. J Wound Care. 2016 Jul 1;25(Sup7):S10-S17. [online]
4 Frykberg RG et al. Int Wound J. 2016 Aug. [online]
5 Lavery LA et al. Int Wound J. 2014 Oct;11(5):554-60. [online]
6 Kirsner RS et al. Wound Repair Regen. 2015 Sep;23(5):737-44. [online]
7 Zelen CM et al. Int Wound J. 2016 Apr;13(2):272-82. [online]