• <tr id="yyy80"></tr>
  • <sup id="yyy80"></sup>
  • <tfoot id="yyy80"><noscript id="yyy80"></noscript></tfoot>
  • 99热精品在线国产_美女午夜性视频免费_国产精品国产高清国产av_av欧美777_自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇_亚洲熟女精品中文字幕_www日本黄色视频网_国产精品野战在线观看 ?

    Patents and intellectual property in orthopaedics and arthroplasty

    2020-12-28 19:03:24ChikaEdwardUzoigweAhmedShoaib
    World Journal of Orthopedics 2020年1期

    Chika Edward Uzoigwe, Ahmed Shoaib

    Chika Edward Uzoigwe, Department of Medicine, Harcourt House, Sheffield S10 1DG, United Kingdom

    Ahmed Shoaib, Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Huddersfield Royal Infirmary,Huddersfield HD3 3EA, United Kingdom

    Abstract

    Key words: Patent; Arthroplasty; Patent trolling; Implant approval; Intellectual property;Health care costs

    INTRODUCTION

    The demand for orthopaedic services represents a significant challenge for the future provision of healthcare worldwide. In the United Kingdom this was highlighted in the flagship “Getting it Right First Time" (GIRFT) Report[1]. £10 billion of the £110 billion annual NHS budget is attributable to musculoskeletal services; third only to cardiac and mental health care[1]. A significant component of the cost is due to the value of orthopaedic devices. The GIRFT report identified a reduction in the cost of orthopaedic implants as one of its key short-term goals. The National Joint Registry of England Wales and Northern Ireland reported 93234 primary hip arthroplasties were performed in England and Wales alone in 2016[2]. By 2017 this had risen to 96717; a 3.7% rise in a single year and hurtling toward the 100000 threshold[3]. The corresponding figures for primary knee and shoulders arthroplasty were 3.7%, and 9.1% respectively[4-7]. Future projections are daunting. It is estimated that in the United Kingdom alone, the annual rates of combined total knee and hip arthroplasty procedures may be as high as 1.5 million by the year 2035[8]. It is not clear if such increases are financially sustainable. The end-of-year net deficit for the United Kingdom National Health Service was reported as £2.45 billion[9]. By 2020 the annual deficit may soar to £20 billion[10]. Lord Carter of Cole, in his 2015 report, commissioned by the United Kingdom department of Health to address this polemic; identified specialty areas in the NHS where financial savings were necessary and possible[11].Annual savings of £283milllion were possible in orthopaedics[10]. This represented the third highest figure; superseded only by the General Medicine and Obstetrics and Gynaecology. Lord Carter, like the GIRFT report, highlighted the cost of orthopaedic implants and devices as one of the cardinal areas in which costs savings should be made. However considerable and unexpected savings may come from an unlikely source.

    The orthopaedic landscape is potentially on the verge of a radical change. Until very recently the most successful orthopaedic implants were protected by patents such that they could only be manufactured by those who invented the devices or those to whom patent rights were transferred. However patents have a finite lifespan.Once this expires other manufactures can create the exact same implant without infringement of intellectual property rights. These imitations are known as generic devices. The introduction of generic products in all other areas of healthcare provision has been accompanied by a precipitous fall in the product price; facilitating access to various aspects of health. The device is immediately available from other providers,with competition resulting in “price decay”. It is estimated that the transition to generic drugs; following the expiration of patented drugs from 1976; saves the NHS annually over £7.1 billion[12]. In the United States the annual saving from generic drugs is astronomically high at $254 billion[13]. Analogous savings in the field of orthopaedic implants could radically transform healthcare, not only in the United Kingdom, but globally; positively impacting upon the accessibility to life-changing intervention. The touch paper was lit at an engaging and instructive debate at the British Orthopaedic Meeting, involving an experienced and authoritative panel on the topic of generic implants. It revealed the controversy and uncertainty involved in this area of orthopaedic practice[14].

    INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

    Intellectual property refers to a concept which has some tangible or concrete manifestation that is assigned to specific owners[15]. In orthopaedics and medicine in general intellectual property rights are protected by means of patents and copyright.

    PATENT

    Patents allow the inventor of an orthopaedic implant the right to prevent others from manufacturing, selling that creation without the inventor’s consent[16]. In effect the originator has the exclusive right of manufacture and sale. The patent can be owned by corporations, a group of people or an individual. Rights under patent can also be transferred or sold. An application must be made for the patent to be applied nationally or internationally. In the United Kingdom patents applications are made to the Intellectual Property Office. National patents will only protect the invention in the nation in which the patent is applied. However it does not prohibit reproduction of the implant abroad. International patents provide protection overseas. A single application can be made under the Patent Cooperation Treaty provides patent covering 140 countries. Application made under European Patent Office covers 30 European nations[17].

    Patents have a finite lifespan. They do not exclude others from imitating the product indefinitely. There has been global harmonisation following implementation of the World Trade Organisation Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs Agreement)[18]. Hence patents last for 20 years[16]. Once this period has expired any manufacturer can create the equivalent products. Globally there are in excess of 1 million hip arthroplasties are implanted annually[19]. Stryker,DePuy Synthes and Zimmer Biomet Holdings sequester over 75% of the worldwide market for hip and knee implants[20].

    PATENT EXPIRY AND FINANCIAL SEQUELAE

    The exclusivity provided by patents confers to the manufactures considerable control on the price and availability of the product. This was highlighted in Lord Carter's report where he identified that the variation of the cost of primary hip prosthesis from£788 to £1590[10]. Further there was little correlation between the number of prostheses used by trusts and cost. However, very recently the patents protecting the Exeter and Corail hip arthroplasty systems both expired; allowing other providers to produce equivalent implants. This impacts directly upon cost and accessibility of products. The ultimate ramifications for healthcare provision with regard to orthopaedic devices are extensive and pervasive.

    Experiences with bisphosphonates are instructive. The patented form of alendronic acid, Fosamax was produced by Merck Sharp and Dohme Limited. It was given US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1995[21]. In 2004 the price of the drug in the United Kingdom was £300/year. The patent expired in 2008. Currently the price of generic alendronic acid is £14/year[22]. This represents a 95% fall in price with the advent of generic alendronic acid. This had considerable ramifications with regard to accessibility. Prior to the introduction of generic bisphosphonates, this class of drug was not included in the national guidelines in the United Kingdom or Europe for the treatment of osteoporosis due to the prohibitive effect of costs[21,23,24]. In the same year the in NICE 2080 guidance it became firmly established as the cornerstone of management[25]. A similar pattern was observed in the rest of Europe[26].

    Most economic models show that once a patent expires the entry of generic products into markets results in “price decay” which is a fall in the price of the product. This stabilises at around 2%-10% of original patented drug price by 3 years[27]. Price depreciation is slower if there are fewer competitor manufacturers of the product or it is of a sophisticated design. However, similarly precipitous declines in the cost of orthopaedic implants could potentially transform healthcare provision.In the United Kingdom according to the National Joint Registry 88763 primary hip arthroplasties were performed in 2014[3]. NICE determined in their latest hip arthroplasty guidance the weighted mean cost of a total hip replacement was £2571 including the cost of cement[28]. The net expenditure on cement, based on the per centage of cemented, uncemented, hybrid and reverse hybrid fixation is £111. Hence the mean prosthetic cost is £2460. Extrapolating from these figures, the introduction of generic hip implants could potentially save the NHS near £200 million annually if the price equilibrium nestled at 10% of innovator cost. This is a significant proportion of Lord Carter's target saving for orthopaedics of £283 million. The effect may even have a significant impact on private healthcare making it more accessible by reducing the cost of private hip arthroplasty in the region of 20%[29].

    GENERIC ORTHOPAEDIC IMPLANTS

    The patent application process requires the applicant to explicit the features of the implant which make it unique and efficacious. These are then protected for the term of the patent. However, the details of any patent are publicly available. If it were not,corporations would not know if they were potentially infringing upon patents when introducing new design. Indeed patent is derived from Latinpatere“l(fā)ay open or bare”for public view. Hence when the patent expires other manufacturers can use the content of the patent application as a blueprint to imitate the design. In addition to the information available on the patent, a process known as “reverse engineering” is employed to produce and identical product. This involves extracting the structure and design from the product itself, in part by means of high resolution 3 dimensional computer assisted analysis using computerised tomography for example[30].

    The current pioneer and protagonist in the orthopaedic imitation implants is Orthimo[31]. The company was founded in and is based in Switzerland with satellite offices in Europe. The first challenged faced by Orthimo was to determine which of the implants on the market to duplicate. However, the solution produced the safest but also most profitable device. The corporation interrogated national joint registries including that England and Wales, Australia, and Sweden to determine the most durable prosthesis. The England and Wales NJR revealed the implants with the best survivorship were the cemented Exeter V40 stem/contemporary cup (Stryker) dyad with ceramic on polyethylene bearing surface and the uncemented Corail with ceramic on polyethylene interface. The 10-year revision rates were similar for both at 2.70% (1.72-4.21) and 2.19% (1.40-3.41) respectively[32]. The longevity of the Exeter contemporary and Corail systems were also confirmed in oldest joints registries including the Swedish (est. 1975)[33], New Zealand (est.1998)[34]registries. This paid testimony not only to the durability of the implants but also the reproducibility amongst surgeons. The reference implants Orthimo selected were the Exeter cemented stem (Stryker), Charnley Elite Plus LPW (Depuy), Corail uncemented stem(Depuy) and Trident uncemented cup (Stryker). The generic Exeter prosthesis is named the Optistem XTR and Opticup[31]. The uncemented Corail equivalents are the Optistem CRL and Opticup TDT.

    APPROVAL OF GENERAL DEVICES

    In the pharmaceutical industry expiration allows manufacture of the same drug. The FDA determines the generic drugs formulation on the basis of studies submitted to it.The confidence interval for the generic’s bioactivity must be between 75% and 125% of the innovator product. This is often misconstrued as meaning FDA allows drugs with 75% of the bioefficacy of the innovator. This is not the case the ranges represents the statistical confidence interval of bioactivity on the basis of studies submitted to FDA[21].

    With regard to orthopaedic implants the generic implants must first comply with international standards of metallurgical composition and metal grain size required for all orthopaedic implants laid down by the International Organisation for Standardisation[35]. With regard to the US FDA there are two modes of approval. The first is the premarket approval process[36]. The FDA has provided prescriptive criteria to which, for example, hip[37], knee and shoulder implants must comply[38]. This requires extensive and comprehensive evaluation of the device with robust clinical trials showing that the implant is safe for use in patients. This is a protracted,exhaustive and expensive process. It may last up to two years excluding the time expended for the essential laboratory pre-clinical trials and subsequent clinical trials.The expense is in the region of $250000[39]. However for devices based on patents there is second pathway: The 510(k) approval process[40]. Here the FDA will approve an implant that is “substantially equivalent” to a device that is previously approved. The applicant must satisfy the FDA that new device: “has the same intended use as the predicate; and has the same technological characteristics as the predicate; or has the same intended use as the predicate; and has different technological characteristics and the information submitted to FDA; does not raise new questions of safety and effectiveness; and demonstrates that the device is at least as safe and effective as the legally marketed device.”

    The FDA goes on to state that: “A claim of substantial equivalence does not mean the new and predicate devices must be identical. Substantial equivalence is established with respect to intended use, design, energy used or delivered, materials,chemical composition, manufacturing process, performance, safety, effectiveness,labelling, biocompatibility, standards, and other characteristics, as applicable.”Generic implants would fall into this category. However the 510(k) approval process has received much criticism as it is the process by which the much maligned and now withdrawn ASR hip was approved. Although the ASR hip is distinct from generic implants, given that it was submitted as implant that was substantively different to other implants[40].

    In the EU and United Kingdom a similar “approval for marketing” paradigm is operative for implants. Manufacturers must prove conformity with EU Medical Devices Directive (MDD) (Council Directive 93/42/EEC) and Medical Device Regulations 2002. They are thence be awarded a certificate indicating "Conformité Européenne" (CE)[41,42]. In the EU the process of approval is delegated to authorised bodies known as "notified bodies". The fee charged by the notified bodies can range from £2240 to £4100[43]. In the United Kingdom notified bodies are approved and accredited by the Medical and Health Products Regulatory agency (MHRA)[44]. Each member state will have its own notified body accreditor. Applicants for the CE certification within the EU are free to apply to any notified body within the EU.

    There is no expedited 510(k) pathway. However proof of equivalent design to an established prosthesis will inevitably accelerate the process. As part of the approval pathway the notified body is required to sample the applicant company's devices. To ensure that these comply with the design specifications alleged by the company;which in turn must adhere to the requirements of the EU MDD. If these are identical to the design specifications of an approved but patent-expired stem such as the Exeter or Corail and the generic manufacture's implants are found to meet this specification,it is difficult to see how any regulatory body be it the FDA or EU can decline approval. If it were to decline approval it is not clear on what grounds such refusal could be made. However the failure of the EU approval process to eliminate the ASR hip has raised concern in the EU with regard to the rigour with which notified bodies evaluate proposals. Recent legislative amendments have been implemented with a view to making the review process more robust and transparent.

    In the United Kingdom there exist additional strata of regulation for implants in the form of NICE and Orthopaedic Data Evaluation Panel (ODEP). NICE in their 2014 guidance on hip arthroplasty recommend that only implants with survivorship of 95% or greater at 10 years should be used[30]. They guidance also suggests that implants with over 3 years of follow-up can also be used; if on extrapolation of the survivorship figures, their 10 years estimates are equivalent to or superior to the 95%benchmark. NICE in addition make reference to ODEP. They provide the NHS with a rating on implants in the United Kingdom depending on the duration of follow-up and implant survival. The optimum rating is 10A* for implants with greater than 10 years follow-up and very strong clinical evidence of 90% or greater survival at 10 years[45]. New devices are given one two ratings, Pre-entry and Pre-entry A*. The latter is reserved for those introduced under the auspices of "Beyond Compliance". This independent body provides support and guidance for manufacturers; facilitating the safe and incremental introduction of new implants into the United Kingdom[46].Orthimo Optistem, and Opticup were awarded the Pre-entry A* rating by ODEP[47]and at the safest, Level 1 risk rating for Beyond Compliance. This is the safest risk rating and usually reserved for a branded product line extension. Orthimo use the same manufacturer for their prosthesis as Corail. There is only one outlet for polyethylene cups use by Corail Exeter and Orthimo.

    POINT OF ENTRY OF GENERIC IMPLANTS INTO HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS: SAME OLD OR BRAND NEW?

    The point of entry of generic implants such as the Orthimo Optistem depends on it is deemed to be a substantively new implant or only new in name alone (nominally new). Given that Orthimo manufacture the Optistem to the same design specification as the Exeter and Corail, with the same manufacturer as the latter, it is difficult to argue it is a materially different implant. This is a fortiori if it passes the necessary audits of the EU MDD confirming conformity with design specifications. One could theoretically pursue a line of argument that this is substantively different device.However, a necessary sequitur from that would that whenever Stryker or DePuy change or add a different manufacturer for their prostheses they too would have treat prostheses from this new manufacturer as a new device and follow the same catenation of steps for approval and produce new 10-year data. This is even if the new manufacturer used the exact same design specifications. Most would consider this to be over-zealous. However, this is effectively the requirement which Orthimo Optistem must meet. Nonetheless some degree of caution is required. The difference between hip prosthesis and much other patented technology is that most other devices were created by design. In the case of the hip prosthesis most of the favourable features that endow longevity, be it nature of the taper or the polished stem, were discovered by serendipity[48]. They were not conceivedab initio;rather their significance was often only appreciated where new designs deviated from the originator and failed rapidly[48]. Hence it is conceivable that another factor (factor X),outsideof the design specifications, that differ between manufacturers may have an adverse or even favourable effect on outcome, that is hitherto unanticipated. This possibility is increased by the fact that only a limited number of parochial manufacturers produce hip prosthesis. The manufacturing process has not been exposed to heterogeneity of production milieux; as would be the case if there were globally distributed production centres. Consider two manufacturers produce implants to the exact same specification. However in one unit but not the other, the process is coincidently exposed to another factor be physical, chemical, biological,synthetic or organic, that is thought not to affect prosthesis longevity and hence is not covered by the manufacture process specification. This factor then impacts upon implant survival. This can happen as the parameters which determine longevity or precocious failure have not been exhaustively elucidated. It is only in hindsight that flaws of the Capital and ASR systems are apparent[49-51]. The role of factor X may be less relevant with generic implants as currently there exists only one outlet for polyethylene cups. However, Orthimo and Exeter use different manufactures for the stems. This may be science fiction. However, it would also be hubris to regard Exeter data as complete vindication of the Optima Stem. Where generic stems are used patients must be appropriately counselled and consent.

    If Orthimo prostheses successfully achieves a 3A* rating it is not clear if other manufacturers would see this as catholic vindication of generics and not feel so obliged to pursue such a deliberate process in the implant market. 3A* rating satisfies the NICE guidance for arthroplasty both in the context of osteoarthritis and hip fracture[30,33]. Further, the success of the implant with regard to longevity of Orthimo may make surgeons more accepting of generic implants as a species.

    However evaluation of survival at 3 years may be in some ways premature. It is likely that that in its infancy the generic prostheses will only be predominantly implanted by experienced surgeons. Hence a more robust test of reproducibility of results will be 10-year data. In a BOA debate on generics Mr T. Nargol one of the key researchers involved in elucidating and communicating lessons from ASR hip advocated a co-ordinated system of implant retrieval and examination for failed generic implants[13,52]. This allows the mode of failure to be determined and compared with that of well characterised prostheses. It also permits the expeditious detection of systematic structural failings that may precipitate premature implant failure.

    PATENT TROLLS AND THE ABUSE OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION

    Patent system is open to abuse. Increasingly in recent years nefarious and undesirable practices have started to emerge. There exist what has been termed Non-Practising Entities (NPE). These bodies purchase patents withnointention of producing or developing the product[53]. Rather they search or wait for others to do so and then initiate legal proceeding claiming their patent rights have been infringed with a view to compensation. Universities have become a fertile ground for NPEs to operate by purchasing patents right from researchers affiliated to these institutions. NPE’s are also pejoratively referred to as “patent trolls”. The most high-profile commercial case involved Apple's Siri. A team from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) created a means of computer processing computer, assigning their patent to the institute.Marathon Patent Group who had no involvement in the genesis of this system learn of the patent, acquired part of the rights and filed a suit on behalf of RPI against Apple. They contend thatSiri constituted infringement of copyright. The case was settled for out of court for £17million[54]. Orthopaedic industry has become nubile territory for patent trolls with some of the most dominant manufacturers repeatedly falling prey to this form of strategic litigations. In 2013 a subsidiary company of Acacia Research Corp, an NPE, purchased 150 patents relating to orthopaedic technology. They made no attempt to develop the patents but rather issued proceeding against Biomet for infringement of copyright. The latter settled out of court[55]. Orthophoenix a subsidiary to NPE, Marathon Paten Group acquired patents form Medtronic relating to kyphoplasty technology[56]. It proceeded to take similar action against Stryker but was unsuccessful[56]. Indeed the orthopaedic industry is so lucrative that an NPE, Wi-Lan has a subsidiary named Orthopedic Innovations whose sole purpose to purchase and sequester orthopaedic patents or "build of an orthopaedic patent portfolio" to use industry jargon. Like other NPEs; there is no intent to develop the patent but rather merely issue proceeding when others who produce devices even of tangential similarly. As an insight into the tenacity and intrepidity of NPEs, Orthopedic Innovations brought a simultaneous multiparty suit against orthopaedic market giants Stryker, DePuy, Zimmer, Biomet, ConforMIS and Medacta all for allegedly infringing their copyright for distal femoral cutting blocks and flexion/extension gap evaluation[57]. DJO Global medical devices manufacturer settled out of court with Orthopaedic Innovations for an undisclosed amount following a similar earlier suit[57]. The definitive outcome of the lawsuits against the other firms is less clear. NPE use the legal system to the advantage. In the United States the process of defending against litigations that can be so financially exacting that it in many cases it may be more cost-effective to settle even where claims of infringement are tenuous or the merits of the case questionable[53]. Proposed new legislation is the US in the form the Innovation Act and Protecting American Talent and Entrepreneurship Act of 2015 are aimed at curbing the predatory litigation of patent trolls[53]. They require litigants to precise the exact patents allegedly being infringed rather than allowing the formulation of nebulous claims from widelydefined patents. This introduces new modes of disputed resolution where the merits of case be evaluated prior to formal legal proceedings in court. Hence the proposed legislation gives US Patent and Trademark Office greater discretion to require that parties initially present their dispute to a new administrative body the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The aim is to curbs cost and make the process more expeditious.Initial evaluations of infringement claims will occur such that frivolous claims are dismissed in limine.

    All orthopaedic surgeons in research or innovation can be a target for patent trolls,seeking to acquire the rights to their patents. The proposals can be superficially appealing with the prospect of immediate remunerations and the added incentive of further gains in event of any other group attempting to develop the product or innovation. However, anyone succumbing to such advances of patents trolls effectively blocks their own contribution to healthcare improvement while creating financials hurdles for anyone else wishing to do.

    Intellectual property has a profound effect on healthcare provision, which is not immediately apparent. The expiration of key patents potentially allows healthcare systems to take advantage of highly effective devises that become financially more accessible. However, cost saving cannot come at the expense of patient safety.Vigilance, surveillance and traceability remain essential for all new generic devices.The emergence of equivalent implants may herald a commercial renaissance for global healthcare and present a significant opportunity for pioneers such as Orthimo.However, the market is fiercely competitive; even Orthimo struggling to establish itself against competitors who have monopolised the market for decades with an audience of surgeons who can be conservative[58]. Similarly the original "magic circle"of Orthopaedic industry faces tangible threats from generic devices but also relentless patent trolls. They must innovate and evolve or risk extinction.

    CONCLUSION

    Arthroplasty and much of orthopaedics involve life-changing surgery. Given that the patents for the most durable implants have now expired, there is a unique opportunity to increase access, as financial constraints slacken. The cardinal question,however, remains how receptive the orthopaedic community will be to generic design equivalents. The purpose of patent law is to promote innovation and creativity.However the system is open to manipulation; as the 21stCentury has seen the rise of the enigmatic patent troll, who patents inventions and yet does not develop them.However they lie in wait for the unsuspecting inventor and claim their intellectual property rights when the original idea has been realised. Caveat inventor.

    久久草成人影院| 亚洲图色成人| 赤兔流量卡办理| 小蜜桃在线观看免费完整版高清| 国产精品.久久久| 国内少妇人妻偷人精品xxx网站| av国产免费在线观看| 亚洲自偷自拍三级| 亚洲婷婷狠狠爱综合网| 麻豆精品久久久久久蜜桃| 老师上课跳d突然被开到最大视频| 国产欧美日韩精品一区二区| 欧美日韩综合久久久久久| 国产高潮美女av| 少妇丰满av| 成年女人永久免费观看视频| 最近手机中文字幕大全| 国内久久婷婷六月综合欲色啪| 国产精品不卡视频一区二区| 亚洲精品日韩在线中文字幕 | 一进一出抽搐动态| 亚洲人成网站在线播| 人人妻人人看人人澡| 全区人妻精品视频| 国产成人91sexporn| 在线观看美女被高潮喷水网站| 一本久久中文字幕| 国产大屁股一区二区在线视频| 欧美人与善性xxx| 91久久精品电影网| 久久人人爽人人爽人人片va| 99riav亚洲国产免费| 99久国产av精品| 国产激情偷乱视频一区二区| 国产女主播在线喷水免费视频网站 | 成年免费大片在线观看| 天堂av国产一区二区熟女人妻| 亚洲经典国产精华液单| 久久精品久久久久久噜噜老黄 | 少妇熟女欧美另类| 人人妻人人看人人澡| 日本黄大片高清| 久久久成人免费电影| 天美传媒精品一区二区| 嘟嘟电影网在线观看| 国产午夜精品一二区理论片| 精品一区二区三区人妻视频| 国产私拍福利视频在线观看| 嫩草影院入口| 99久久成人亚洲精品观看| 日本熟妇午夜| av国产免费在线观看| 狂野欧美激情性xxxx在线观看| 男人和女人高潮做爰伦理| 国产久久久一区二区三区| 两性午夜刺激爽爽歪歪视频在线观看| 91aial.com中文字幕在线观看| 一级毛片电影观看 | 亚洲成a人片在线一区二区| 黄色欧美视频在线观看| 国产女主播在线喷水免费视频网站 | 欧美不卡视频在线免费观看| 国产 一区精品| 欧美性猛交黑人性爽| 在现免费观看毛片| 大又大粗又爽又黄少妇毛片口| 精品不卡国产一区二区三区| 国产伦精品一区二区三区视频9| 免费大片18禁| 国产一级毛片在线| 黄色一级大片看看| 精品国产三级普通话版| 欧美成人一区二区免费高清观看| 国内久久婷婷六月综合欲色啪| 久久久久国产网址| 午夜a级毛片| 狠狠狠狠99中文字幕| 夜夜夜夜夜久久久久| 国产精品野战在线观看| 亚洲精品日韩在线中文字幕 | 亚洲最大成人中文| 日本色播在线视频| 少妇猛男粗大的猛烈进出视频 | 99热只有精品国产| 国产老妇伦熟女老妇高清| 亚洲天堂国产精品一区在线| 夫妻性生交免费视频一级片| 热99在线观看视频| 亚洲精品久久国产高清桃花| 又爽又黄a免费视频| 亚洲色图av天堂| 亚洲成人中文字幕在线播放| 亚洲av一区综合| 日本撒尿小便嘘嘘汇集6| 美女被艹到高潮喷水动态| 寂寞人妻少妇视频99o| 国产精品,欧美在线| 久久久久久国产a免费观看| 久久韩国三级中文字幕| 一本精品99久久精品77| 亚洲成人久久性| 国产成人精品婷婷| 久久精品夜色国产| 搞女人的毛片| 搡女人真爽免费视频火全软件| 最近中文字幕高清免费大全6| 国产三级在线视频| 成人无遮挡网站| 亚洲人成网站高清观看| 人人妻人人澡欧美一区二区| 色播亚洲综合网| 国产又黄又爽又无遮挡在线| 国产爱豆传媒在线观看| av视频在线观看入口| 直男gayav资源| 少妇高潮的动态图| 99在线人妻在线中文字幕| 能在线免费观看的黄片| 国产精品国产高清国产av| 久久99热这里只有精品18| 国产亚洲av嫩草精品影院| 联通29元200g的流量卡| 18禁黄网站禁片免费观看直播| 色播亚洲综合网| 高清毛片免费看| 国产精品久久久久久久电影| 91久久精品国产一区二区三区| 亚洲一区高清亚洲精品| 国产亚洲精品久久久久久毛片| 亚洲精品色激情综合| 可以在线观看的亚洲视频| 中国美白少妇内射xxxbb| 亚洲成人中文字幕在线播放| 国产亚洲精品久久久com| av专区在线播放| 人人妻人人澡欧美一区二区| 中国美女看黄片| 日韩大尺度精品在线看网址| 欧美日本亚洲视频在线播放| 能在线免费看毛片的网站| 亚洲欧美日韩高清在线视频| 久久欧美精品欧美久久欧美| 性插视频无遮挡在线免费观看| 最近最新中文字幕大全电影3| 久久久久久九九精品二区国产| av在线天堂中文字幕| 欧美另类亚洲清纯唯美| 亚洲中文字幕一区二区三区有码在线看| 欧美一区二区国产精品久久精品| 91精品国产九色| 99视频精品全部免费 在线| 又粗又硬又长又爽又黄的视频 | 中文亚洲av片在线观看爽| 天堂√8在线中文| 桃色一区二区三区在线观看| 国产亚洲精品久久久久久毛片| 国产一区二区激情短视频| 麻豆av噜噜一区二区三区| 看十八女毛片水多多多| 国产av不卡久久| a级毛色黄片| 网址你懂的国产日韩在线| 长腿黑丝高跟| 亚洲美女搞黄在线观看| 亚洲一区二区三区色噜噜| 黄色视频,在线免费观看| 亚洲成人久久爱视频| 亚洲在线自拍视频| 国产一区二区三区av在线 | 久久精品人妻少妇| 嫩草影院精品99| 久久久色成人| 老熟妇乱子伦视频在线观看| 亚洲精品日韩av片在线观看| 狠狠狠狠99中文字幕| 又黄又爽又刺激的免费视频.| 国产精品久久久久久亚洲av鲁大| av视频在线观看入口| av在线老鸭窝| 3wmmmm亚洲av在线观看| 麻豆成人午夜福利视频| 婷婷精品国产亚洲av| 又粗又硬又长又爽又黄的视频 | 又粗又爽又猛毛片免费看| 日本爱情动作片www.在线观看| 老女人水多毛片| 亚洲精品乱码久久久久久按摩| 日本爱情动作片www.在线观看| 丝袜喷水一区| 日韩中字成人| 最近2019中文字幕mv第一页| 波野结衣二区三区在线| 成人漫画全彩无遮挡| 亚洲第一电影网av| 国产极品天堂在线| 99久国产av精品国产电影| 国产午夜精品论理片| 久久久久久久久大av| 三级毛片av免费| 久久鲁丝午夜福利片| 深夜精品福利| 亚洲不卡免费看| 国内少妇人妻偷人精品xxx网站| 女人十人毛片免费观看3o分钟| 亚洲欧美日韩高清在线视频| 国产不卡一卡二| 99在线视频只有这里精品首页| 麻豆成人av视频| 我的女老师完整版在线观看| 中出人妻视频一区二区| 91午夜精品亚洲一区二区三区| 日韩av在线大香蕉| 欧美日韩国产亚洲二区| 中文精品一卡2卡3卡4更新| 夜夜夜夜夜久久久久| 全区人妻精品视频| 久久韩国三级中文字幕| 欧美日韩国产亚洲二区| 国国产精品蜜臀av免费| 国产在线精品亚洲第一网站| 哪个播放器可以免费观看大片| 毛片女人毛片| 看免费成人av毛片| 欧美性猛交╳xxx乱大交人| 中文字幕人妻熟人妻熟丝袜美| 天天躁夜夜躁狠狠久久av| 亚洲精品影视一区二区三区av| 午夜视频国产福利| 91麻豆精品激情在线观看国产| 夜夜夜夜夜久久久久| 免费观看在线日韩| 亚洲婷婷狠狠爱综合网| 欧美激情国产日韩精品一区| 天堂√8在线中文| 精品99又大又爽又粗少妇毛片| 日本免费一区二区三区高清不卡| 一级毛片我不卡| 91狼人影院| 国产一区亚洲一区在线观看| 日本在线视频免费播放| 国产 一区精品| 在线免费十八禁| h日本视频在线播放| 我要看日韩黄色一级片| 久久这里有精品视频免费| 久久精品国产亚洲av香蕉五月| 午夜激情欧美在线| 欧美精品一区二区大全| 男插女下体视频免费在线播放| 免费看光身美女| 国产一区二区在线av高清观看| 中文字幕免费在线视频6| 国内少妇人妻偷人精品xxx网站| 久久午夜福利片| 伦精品一区二区三区| 长腿黑丝高跟| 男女那种视频在线观看| 美女国产视频在线观看| 九九爱精品视频在线观看| 22中文网久久字幕| 成人无遮挡网站| 尤物成人国产欧美一区二区三区| 国产精品无大码| 国产人妻一区二区三区在| 国语自产精品视频在线第100页| 久久久久久大精品| 国产精品野战在线观看| 久久中文看片网| 干丝袜人妻中文字幕| 欧美日韩一区二区视频在线观看视频在线 | a级毛色黄片| 身体一侧抽搐| 18禁裸乳无遮挡免费网站照片| 搞女人的毛片| 超碰av人人做人人爽久久| 亚洲丝袜综合中文字幕| 亚洲国产欧洲综合997久久,| 亚洲天堂国产精品一区在线| 久久精品国产亚洲av香蕉五月| 欧美丝袜亚洲另类| 国产一级毛片七仙女欲春2| 欧美zozozo另类| 久久久久久久久中文| 深夜精品福利| 日本一本二区三区精品| 久久久久久伊人网av| 亚洲av不卡在线观看| 三级国产精品欧美在线观看| 高清毛片免费观看视频网站| 国产成人freesex在线| 五月玫瑰六月丁香| 久久久久久久久久久丰满| 国产真实伦视频高清在线观看| 成人性生交大片免费视频hd| 婷婷精品国产亚洲av| 校园人妻丝袜中文字幕| 亚洲国产日韩欧美精品在线观看| 国产视频首页在线观看| 亚洲天堂国产精品一区在线| 午夜福利高清视频| 麻豆成人午夜福利视频| 悠悠久久av| 午夜免费激情av| 网址你懂的国产日韩在线| 校园人妻丝袜中文字幕| 国产成人freesex在线| 舔av片在线| 成人一区二区视频在线观看| АⅤ资源中文在线天堂| 黄色欧美视频在线观看| 国产高清视频在线观看网站| 国产在线精品亚洲第一网站| 国产精品人妻久久久影院| 久久精品国产鲁丝片午夜精品| 18禁黄网站禁片免费观看直播| 麻豆精品久久久久久蜜桃| 天天躁夜夜躁狠狠久久av| 麻豆国产av国片精品| 亚洲国产高清在线一区二区三| 美女内射精品一级片tv| 一级黄色大片毛片| 久久午夜福利片| 白带黄色成豆腐渣| 91久久精品国产一区二区成人| 国产精品不卡视频一区二区| 欧美性猛交╳xxx乱大交人| 精品久久久久久久人妻蜜臀av| 久久久久久久久久黄片| 国产又黄又爽又无遮挡在线| 亚州av有码| 乱码一卡2卡4卡精品| 国内揄拍国产精品人妻在线| 如何舔出高潮| 国内揄拍国产精品人妻在线| 别揉我奶头 嗯啊视频| 精品久久久久久久久亚洲| 日本黄色片子视频| 亚洲欧美日韩无卡精品| 免费看av在线观看网站| 91av网一区二区| 啦啦啦啦在线视频资源| 精华霜和精华液先用哪个| 色视频www国产| 99国产极品粉嫩在线观看| 午夜激情福利司机影院| 国产三级中文精品| 日本撒尿小便嘘嘘汇集6| 男人舔奶头视频| 午夜精品在线福利| 成人毛片a级毛片在线播放| 精品一区二区三区视频在线| 日本免费一区二区三区高清不卡| 热99re8久久精品国产| 91久久精品电影网| 午夜激情欧美在线| 亚洲欧美精品专区久久| 一级av片app| 国产精品无大码| 性欧美人与动物交配| 国产三级在线视频| 亚洲欧美精品综合久久99| 91aial.com中文字幕在线观看| 麻豆av噜噜一区二区三区| 久久人人精品亚洲av| 少妇熟女欧美另类| 成人三级黄色视频| 免费黄网站久久成人精品| eeuss影院久久| 中文字幕免费在线视频6| 男女下面进入的视频免费午夜| 人妻久久中文字幕网| 国产一区二区在线观看日韩| 国产精品久久电影中文字幕| 亚洲综合色惰| 欧美一级a爱片免费观看看| 精品午夜福利在线看| 欧美一级a爱片免费观看看| 长腿黑丝高跟| 国产精品人妻久久久久久| 亚洲无线在线观看| 特级一级黄色大片| 久久韩国三级中文字幕| 亚洲人成网站在线播放欧美日韩| 日韩亚洲欧美综合| 亚洲精品乱码久久久久久按摩| 少妇人妻精品综合一区二区 | av在线天堂中文字幕| 91狼人影院| 一个人免费在线观看电影| 一个人看视频在线观看www免费| 狠狠狠狠99中文字幕| 国产精品一区二区三区四区免费观看| 欧美成人一区二区免费高清观看| 中文亚洲av片在线观看爽| 国产亚洲精品久久久com| 日本黄大片高清| 国产人妻一区二区三区在| 亚洲激情五月婷婷啪啪| 又爽又黄无遮挡网站| 18禁黄网站禁片免费观看直播| 亚洲av电影不卡..在线观看| 久久精品国产清高在天天线| 欧美一级a爱片免费观看看| 亚洲精品粉嫩美女一区| 色5月婷婷丁香| а√天堂www在线а√下载| 99久久九九国产精品国产免费| 亚洲精品影视一区二区三区av| 人体艺术视频欧美日本| 99在线视频只有这里精品首页| 国内少妇人妻偷人精品xxx网站| 在线免费观看不下载黄p国产| 神马国产精品三级电影在线观看| 女人被狂操c到高潮| 黄片wwwwww| 亚洲不卡免费看| 国产精品,欧美在线| 亚洲三级黄色毛片| 成人漫画全彩无遮挡| 国产精品乱码一区二三区的特点| 午夜福利在线观看吧| 人体艺术视频欧美日本| 成人性生交大片免费视频hd| 黄片无遮挡物在线观看| 精品久久久久久成人av| 亚洲av免费在线观看| 免费人成在线观看视频色| 国产精品爽爽va在线观看网站| 亚洲性久久影院| 亚洲aⅴ乱码一区二区在线播放| 一个人看的www免费观看视频| 高清毛片免费观看视频网站| 国产乱人视频| 国产v大片淫在线免费观看| 男人舔女人下体高潮全视频| 国产高清三级在线| 日韩强制内射视频| 国产精品国产高清国产av| 最后的刺客免费高清国语| 亚洲中文字幕一区二区三区有码在线看| 能在线免费观看的黄片| 亚洲国产精品sss在线观看| 精品99又大又爽又粗少妇毛片| 国产伦一二天堂av在线观看| 黄色视频,在线免费观看| 亚洲欧美日韩东京热| 男女视频在线观看网站免费| 三级国产精品欧美在线观看| 久久99热6这里只有精品| eeuss影院久久| 日韩欧美国产在线观看| 成年女人永久免费观看视频| 不卡视频在线观看欧美| 高清毛片免费观看视频网站| 亚洲激情五月婷婷啪啪| 成熟少妇高潮喷水视频| 国产一区二区三区av在线 | 日本五十路高清| 精品日产1卡2卡| 亚洲欧美成人综合另类久久久 | 男的添女的下面高潮视频| 国产精品一二三区在线看| 日韩中字成人| 亚洲在线观看片| 中国国产av一级| 久久久久国产网址| 99久国产av精品国产电影| 波多野结衣高清无吗| 老司机福利观看| 99热网站在线观看| 国产色婷婷99| 午夜亚洲福利在线播放| 高清午夜精品一区二区三区 | 最新中文字幕久久久久| 国内精品久久久久精免费| 亚洲最大成人av| 伦理电影大哥的女人| 亚洲四区av| 久久99精品国语久久久| 国产精品永久免费网站| 国产一区二区在线av高清观看| 欧美人与善性xxx| 97热精品久久久久久| 国产高潮美女av| 成人二区视频| 日韩三级伦理在线观看| 91狼人影院| 97热精品久久久久久| 国产乱人视频| 欧美高清性xxxxhd video| 国产男人的电影天堂91| 亚洲无线观看免费| 最后的刺客免费高清国语| 亚洲激情五月婷婷啪啪| 九九爱精品视频在线观看| 天堂√8在线中文| 熟妇人妻久久中文字幕3abv| 日本一二三区视频观看| 神马国产精品三级电影在线观看| 国产久久久一区二区三区| 床上黄色一级片| 国产精品乱码一区二三区的特点| 国产亚洲精品久久久com| 亚洲真实伦在线观看| 久久久久久久久久久丰满| 国产一区二区激情短视频| 成人高潮视频无遮挡免费网站| 久久久久九九精品影院| 国产三级中文精品| 99久久人妻综合| 床上黄色一级片| 日韩,欧美,国产一区二区三区 | 成人欧美大片| 女人十人毛片免费观看3o分钟| 国产成人精品久久久久久| 色视频www国产| 99久久中文字幕三级久久日本| kizo精华| 亚洲va在线va天堂va国产| 日产精品乱码卡一卡2卡三| 亚洲第一电影网av| 久久久精品欧美日韩精品| 国产黄片美女视频| 国产麻豆成人av免费视频| 国产高清激情床上av| 免费一级毛片在线播放高清视频| 岛国在线免费视频观看| 久久精品91蜜桃| 免费看av在线观看网站| 五月玫瑰六月丁香| 看免费成人av毛片| 午夜爱爱视频在线播放| 搡女人真爽免费视频火全软件| 国产激情偷乱视频一区二区| 嫩草影院入口| av天堂在线播放| 尤物成人国产欧美一区二区三区| 中国国产av一级| 欧美区成人在线视频| 久久99热6这里只有精品| 国产精品免费一区二区三区在线| 国产伦在线观看视频一区| 国产亚洲av嫩草精品影院| 深夜a级毛片| 精品久久久噜噜| 日日干狠狠操夜夜爽| 日韩欧美 国产精品| 人妻久久中文字幕网| 国产精品三级大全| av福利片在线观看| 国产视频内射| 国产成年人精品一区二区| 免费看光身美女| 国产片特级美女逼逼视频| 色噜噜av男人的天堂激情| 亚洲av中文字字幕乱码综合| 欧美xxxx黑人xx丫x性爽| 只有这里有精品99| 丝袜喷水一区| 国产黄片视频在线免费观看| ponron亚洲| 亚洲不卡免费看| 中文字幕熟女人妻在线| 久久精品91蜜桃| 欧美成人精品欧美一级黄| 国产一区二区在线av高清观看| 人人妻人人澡人人爽人人夜夜 | 少妇裸体淫交视频免费看高清| 夜夜看夜夜爽夜夜摸| 亚洲精品456在线播放app| 亚洲精品粉嫩美女一区| 在线观看66精品国产| 久久精品久久久久久久性| 国产成人精品婷婷| 一个人看的www免费观看视频| 日本撒尿小便嘘嘘汇集6| 国产成年人精品一区二区| 国产毛片a区久久久久| 乱系列少妇在线播放| 免费av毛片视频| 国产伦在线观看视频一区| 1024手机看黄色片| 精品国产三级普通话版| 国产精品不卡视频一区二区| 国内精品宾馆在线| 国内揄拍国产精品人妻在线| 亚洲欧美成人精品一区二区| 国产亚洲av嫩草精品影院| 少妇被粗大猛烈的视频| 日韩欧美在线乱码| 99久国产av精品国产电影| 久久精品夜夜夜夜夜久久蜜豆| 91精品一卡2卡3卡4卡| 日本欧美国产在线视频| 精品国产三级普通话版| 久久久久免费精品人妻一区二区| 99久国产av精品国产电影| 久久亚洲精品不卡| 国产午夜精品论理片| 成人av在线播放网站| 亚洲av男天堂| 久久鲁丝午夜福利片| 秋霞在线观看毛片| 亚洲自偷自拍三级| 国语自产精品视频在线第100页| 日本黄色片子视频| 亚洲内射少妇av| 99视频精品全部免费 在线| 嘟嘟电影网在线观看| 亚洲无线在线观看| 亚洲色图av天堂| 麻豆成人午夜福利视频| 深夜a级毛片| 真实男女啪啪啪动态图| 欧美性感艳星|