Tissium raises €60M for sutureless nerve repair



Tissium has raised €60M to carry the world’s only FDA-cleared sutureless nerve repair system into US operating rooms. The Paris medtech wants to swap the surgeon’s needle for a dab of light-cured glue.

For a severed nerve, the standard repair has barely changed in decades. A surgeon stitches the two frayed ends together under a microscope. The hope is that the needle will not damage the very tissue it is meant to mend. The results vary. One recent meta-analysis found that only 54% of patients regain meaningful function after the operation.

Paris-based Tissium thinks it has a better way. The medtech has just closed a €60M financing package. The cash will push its sutureless system into US operating rooms. Its first product is already on sale there.

The deal

The money comes in two halves. The first is a €30M Series D2 round, completed at the end of 2025. An undisclosed US family-owned investor led the round. New family offices, wealthy individuals and existing backers also took part.

The second comes as a credit line of up to €30M from the European Investment Bank. It arrives in three tranches of €10M. Each tranche depends on commercial, clinical and financing milestones. The deal mixes dilutive and venture debt. Tissium expects to draw the first tranche before the end of June.

The raise brings the company’s total funding to more than €200M since 2013. Cathay Health led its previous round, a €50M Series C, in 2024. The French life-sciences investor Sofinnova also backed it.

Why the needle is the problem

Nerve surgery is delicate work. The tissue is soft, and every stitch is a small wound. Push a needle through a nerve and you risk scarring the fibres that need to regrow. That is part of why recovery so often falls short.

Tissium’s pitch is to stop piercing the nerve at all. Its flagship product, COAPTIUM CONNECT, fits a small 3D-printed chamber around the two severed ends without penetrating them. A surgeon then squeezes a liquid polymer around the join and sets it hard with a blue-light pen. The seal holds the nerve in place while it heals. The device dissolves over the following months and leaves nothing behind.

The material is the company’s real asset. Tissium calls it a biomorphic programmable polymer. The synthetic glue contains no human or animal tissue, unlike rival products that rely on donors. In theory, the platform can stretch to many different repairs.

The proof so far

The clinical signal is small but striking. In a 12-patient study of digital nerve injuries, every participant regained full movement. None reported pain a year after surgery. On that basis, COAPTIUM CONNECT won FDA De Novo authorisation and went on sale in the US in November 2025.

It is, the company says, the only FDA-cleared sutureless nerve repair system of its kind. That claim is the heart of the sales pitch. It is also why investors will bet on a device with such a short track record.

From an MIT lab to the operating room

Tissium has been around a while. Christophe Bancel and Maria Pereira co-founded it in 2013. Pereira invented the core polymer during her PhD in the MIT Portugal Program. She worked in the labs of Robert Langer and Jeffrey Karp. The company sits in Paris, with a US office in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and a factory in Roncq, northern France.

“We are now executing on our transition into a commercial-stage medtech company,” said Christophe Bancel, the chief executive and co-founder. That long gestation is normal for medical devices, where regulators move slowly and proof takes years. It also explains the shape of this raise. Tissium is no longer trying to invent something. It is trying to sell it.

A crowded, growing market

The prize is large and getting larger. The global market for peripheral nerve repair devices was worth about $13.4bn in 2025. It could reach $30.5bn by 2033, growing at roughly 15% a year. Trauma cases are rising, and surgeons are shifting toward gentler, absorbable repairs.

Tissium will not have it to itself. The US firm Axogen dominates today, with a market value near $1.67bn. Its main nerve graft won full FDA biologics approval in December 2025. Integra LifeSciences holds strong positions in nerve conduits and wraps. Both, though, lean on donor-derived material, and both still need sutures to finish the job. Tissium’s wager is that surgeons will prefer a synthetic device that never touches the inside of the nerve.

Europe’s patient money

The structure of the deal says something about European medtech. The EIB has become a regular backer of the region’s health and deep tech companies. It has recently put money into firms working on brain protection and cancer drugs. Its cash buys time without forcing a startup to give away large chunks of equity.

That matters because medtech funding in Europe is tight, and investors tend to want commercial proof early. A milestone-linked loan from a public lender helps bridge the gap between a first approval and real revenue. Tissium has followed a path other EIB-backed devices took. Ireland’s Neuromod paired equity with EIB venture debt to fund its tinnitus treatment.

It is also part of a wider French push into US clinics. Other medtech firms from the country are making the same leap. They include HeartFocus, whose AI cardiac imaging is chasing the same American market.

The next 18 months

The science looks proven. The harder question is commercial. Can a European startup build a US sales force fast enough to win surgeons’ loyalty? Axogen is busy entrenching its newly approved products in the same operating rooms.

Tissium also has a pipeline to feed. Its hernia repair device, ECLIPSIUM, won an FDA investigational exemption in September 2025. It has also finished European enrollment toward a CE mark. The polymer platform stretches to cardiovascular sealing too. Each new use is another costly trial.

The €60M, in other words, does not need to last forever. It needs to last long enough to turn one cleared device into a habit in the operating room. Whether surgeons reach for the glue over the needle is now the only question that matters.



Source link

Leave a Reply

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get our latest articles delivered straight to your inbox. No spam, we promise.

Recent Reviews


TL;DR

Meta stripped NameTag facial recognition code from its AI app one day after WIRED exposed it on 50 million phones. Meta says no decision has been made.

Meta removed nearly all traces of an unreleased facial recognition system from its smart glasses companion app on Friday, one day after WIRED reported that the software had been quietly embedded in an app installed on more than 50 million phones. The feature, which Meta internally called NameTag, was designed to convert faces captured by the company’s Ray-Ban smart glasses into unique biometric signatures and compare them against a database stored on the user’s device. WIRED also found that faces the system failed to recognise were cropped, indexed, and stored locally for future processing.

Andy Stone, Meta’s vice president of communications, told WIRED on Monday that the feature is “purely exploratory,” adding that no final decision has been made on what to do with it. That characterisation sits uneasily with the evidence WIRED documented. The version of Meta AI published the day of WIRED’s Thursday report contained several code libraries explicitly named for face recognition, a process for running the NameTag recognition pipeline, and a “Person recognised” alert the app would have shown if someone were identified.

Friday’s release stripped all of it out, along with a folder where the app would have stored the cropped images and biometric signatures of unrecognised faces. Meta did not answer WIRED’s questions about why the code was removed or whether the changes were planned before the story was published. A few fragments remain in the latest version, including an internal debug menu label and a dormant link meant to open a recognised person’s profile, pointing to parts of the system that are no longer there.

The 💜 of EU tech

The latest rumblings from the EU tech scene, a story from our wise ol’ founder Boris, and some questionable AI art. It’s free, every week, in your inbox. Sign up now!

The gap between Meta’s public statements and the code WIRED found is the central tension. Before the Thursday report, Stone dismissed the findings by writing that the company could not answer questions about how the system would work because “the feature does not exist.” Andrew Bosworth, Meta’s chief technology officer, called the reporting “incredibly misleading” and “absolutely dishonest.” Yet the code was functional enough to include three AI models, one to detect faces, another to crop them, and a third to encode them as biometric data, all embedded in the companion app for a product already at the centre of a mounting privacy crisis.

Meta declined to answer ten questions WIRED posed before publishing, including whether it had already created the database of face profiles NameTag uses, how long the app retains photographs and biometric data of unrecognised people, and whether that data would ever be sent back to Meta’s servers. The company also did not respond to questions about whether it was building NameTag for blind or low-vision users, or to criticism from privacy advocates who warned the system could let stalkers and abusers identify strangers in public.

NameTag first surfaced in February, when The New York Times, citing internal Meta documents, reported that the company was developing face recognition for its smart glasses and considering a launch as early as this year. One internal memo reportedly described releasing the feature during a “dynamic political environment” when privacy and civil liberties advocates would be distracted by other concerns. WIRED subsequently found that much of NameTag’s machinery had been built into the Meta AI app as early as January, months before any public acknowledgement, adding another layer to the company’s pattern of shipping first and disclosing later when it comes to its smart glasses.

Kade Crockford, director of the technology for liberty programme at the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, said the removal does not undo the original decision to ship the code and pointed to it as evidence that consumer privacy needs stronger legal protection than Congress has been willing to provide. The Massachusetts House of Representatives last week unanimously passed a consumer privacy bill that, if enacted as written, would impose strong enforcement provisions including a private right of action allowing aggrieved users to sue. “State lawmakers need to do their job and step up to protect consumer privacy,” Crockford said.

Meta’s sneaky tactics in slipping the face-recognition code into its smart glasses show exactly why data privacy bills need the teeth of strong enforcement,” Crockford added. “Companies like Meta prioritise their bottom line, so lawmakers need to speak in the only language its C-suite understands.” Whether a code removal prompted by investigative reporting constitutes a victory or merely a tactical retreat depends on what Meta does next, and on whether the regulatory pressure building on both sides of the Atlantic produces enforceable consequences before the feature quietly returns under a different name.



Source link