• <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 This represented the third highest figure; superseded only by the General Medicine and Obstetrics and Gynaecology.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.

    av黄色大香蕉| 搡老岳熟女国产| 亚洲三级黄色毛片| 亚洲国产色片| 丰满乱子伦码专区| 日韩成人在线观看一区二区三区| 亚洲色图av天堂| 两性午夜刺激爽爽歪歪视频在线观看| 乱码一卡2卡4卡精品| 精品欧美国产一区二区三| 亚洲av电影在线进入| 91麻豆精品激情在线观看国产| 亚洲精品在线观看二区| 99久久九九国产精品国产免费| 可以在线观看毛片的网站| 久久草成人影院| 精品一区二区三区视频在线| 成人特级av手机在线观看| 九九久久精品国产亚洲av麻豆| 在线观看免费视频日本深夜| 九色国产91popny在线| 三级毛片av免费| av在线天堂中文字幕| 国产欧美日韩一区二区三| 999久久久精品免费观看国产| 看片在线看免费视频| 中文字幕免费在线视频6| 熟女人妻精品中文字幕| 岛国在线免费视频观看| 欧美日本亚洲视频在线播放| 欧美乱色亚洲激情| 中文字幕人妻熟人妻熟丝袜美| 国产成人aa在线观看| 综合色av麻豆| 亚洲精品一区av在线观看| 国产探花极品一区二区| 午夜精品一区二区三区免费看| 美女高潮的动态| 禁无遮挡网站| av在线天堂中文字幕| 在线免费观看的www视频| 国产精品影院久久| 亚洲中文字幕日韩| 人人妻人人看人人澡| 亚洲人成网站在线播| 蜜桃亚洲精品一区二区三区| 精品欧美国产一区二区三| 亚洲国产精品成人综合色| 淫秽高清视频在线观看| 国产av不卡久久| 色噜噜av男人的天堂激情| 亚洲精品亚洲一区二区| 成年女人看的毛片在线观看| 伊人久久精品亚洲午夜| 午夜日韩欧美国产| 精品久久久久久久久久免费视频| 国产日本99.免费观看| 日日干狠狠操夜夜爽| 欧美性猛交黑人性爽| 搡女人真爽免费视频火全软件 | 欧美日本亚洲视频在线播放| 国产免费一级a男人的天堂| 少妇高潮的动态图| 脱女人内裤的视频| 尤物成人国产欧美一区二区三区| 夜夜夜夜夜久久久久| 国产麻豆成人av免费视频| 能在线免费观看的黄片| 国产精品嫩草影院av在线观看 | 一进一出抽搐gif免费好疼| 九九在线视频观看精品| 欧美绝顶高潮抽搐喷水| 波多野结衣巨乳人妻| 国产免费男女视频| 国产av麻豆久久久久久久| 久久精品国产亚洲av天美| 国产v大片淫在线免费观看| 成年女人毛片免费观看观看9| 美女cb高潮喷水在线观看| 国产高清有码在线观看视频| 美女xxoo啪啪120秒动态图 | 尤物成人国产欧美一区二区三区| 极品教师在线视频| 亚洲最大成人手机在线| 亚洲黑人精品在线| av在线天堂中文字幕| 天堂动漫精品| 免费电影在线观看免费观看| 国产av在哪里看| 91午夜精品亚洲一区二区三区 | 国产精品不卡视频一区二区 | 免费电影在线观看免费观看| 亚洲,欧美精品.| 精品乱码久久久久久99久播| 婷婷色综合大香蕉| 成人国产一区最新在线观看| 亚洲成人久久性| 99久久久亚洲精品蜜臀av| 夜夜看夜夜爽夜夜摸| 夜夜看夜夜爽夜夜摸| 999久久久精品免费观看国产| 午夜久久久久精精品| 午夜精品久久久久久毛片777| 欧美一区二区国产精品久久精品| 波多野结衣高清作品| 国产av不卡久久| 国产精品精品国产色婷婷| 我要看日韩黄色一级片| АⅤ资源中文在线天堂| 长腿黑丝高跟| 99热只有精品国产| 天堂动漫精品| 国产高清视频在线观看网站| 亚洲内射少妇av| 乱人视频在线观看| 搡老妇女老女人老熟妇| 嫩草影院精品99| 欧美性猛交╳xxx乱大交人| 一级毛片久久久久久久久女| 狠狠狠狠99中文字幕| 女人十人毛片免费观看3o分钟| 岛国在线免费视频观看| 天天躁日日操中文字幕| 国产精华一区二区三区| 精品欧美国产一区二区三| 亚洲人与动物交配视频| 国产日本99.免费观看| 成年免费大片在线观看| 欧美中文日本在线观看视频| 亚洲欧美精品综合久久99| 美女高潮的动态| 成人亚洲精品av一区二区| 中文在线观看免费www的网站| 色尼玛亚洲综合影院| 国产精品永久免费网站| 黄色丝袜av网址大全| 人妻丰满熟妇av一区二区三区| 又黄又爽又刺激的免费视频.| 精品人妻一区二区三区麻豆 | 亚洲av中文字字幕乱码综合| 国产亚洲精品综合一区在线观看| 国产乱人伦免费视频| 十八禁国产超污无遮挡网站| 校园春色视频在线观看| 又黄又爽又刺激的免费视频.| 真人做人爱边吃奶动态| 伊人久久精品亚洲午夜| 黄色一级大片看看| 久久国产精品影院| 中文亚洲av片在线观看爽| 全区人妻精品视频| 午夜福利在线观看免费完整高清在 | 精品人妻1区二区| 午夜影院日韩av| eeuss影院久久| 久久亚洲精品不卡| 91麻豆精品激情在线观看国产| 欧美黑人欧美精品刺激| 午夜亚洲福利在线播放| 欧美成人性av电影在线观看| 嫩草影视91久久| 精品人妻偷拍中文字幕| 男人舔女人下体高潮全视频| www日本黄色视频网| 久久人人爽人人爽人人片va | 18禁在线播放成人免费| 我要搜黄色片| 成年女人永久免费观看视频| 51午夜福利影视在线观看| 日本 欧美在线| 好男人在线观看高清免费视频| 成人av在线播放网站| 精品熟女少妇八av免费久了| 内地一区二区视频在线| 久久久国产成人精品二区| 校园春色视频在线观看| 亚洲在线自拍视频| 小蜜桃在线观看免费完整版高清| 国产午夜精品论理片| 变态另类成人亚洲欧美熟女| 国产乱人视频| 亚洲乱码一区二区免费版| 国内揄拍国产精品人妻在线| 成人特级av手机在线观看| 国产黄色小视频在线观看| 最近最新免费中文字幕在线| 熟女人妻精品中文字幕| 中文字幕人妻熟人妻熟丝袜美| 怎么达到女性高潮| 国产精品国产高清国产av| 亚洲中文字幕日韩| 色在线成人网| 精品一区二区免费观看| 露出奶头的视频| 国产成人影院久久av| 老司机午夜福利在线观看视频| 最近最新中文字幕大全电影3| 美女被艹到高潮喷水动态| 日本熟妇午夜| 永久网站在线| 18禁黄网站禁片免费观看直播| 高清日韩中文字幕在线| 亚洲av电影在线进入| a在线观看视频网站| 日韩 亚洲 欧美在线| 老师上课跳d突然被开到最大视频 久久午夜综合久久蜜桃 | 亚洲经典国产精华液单 | 性色av乱码一区二区三区2| 18美女黄网站色大片免费观看| 性色avwww在线观看| 久久久久性生活片| 又爽又黄a免费视频| 成人永久免费在线观看视频| 999久久久精品免费观看国产| 成人三级黄色视频| 欧美日韩中文字幕国产精品一区二区三区| 日韩高清综合在线| 最新在线观看一区二区三区| 中文在线观看免费www的网站| 免费一级毛片在线播放高清视频| 欧美最新免费一区二区三区 | 午夜a级毛片| 国产黄a三级三级三级人| 国产一区二区三区在线臀色熟女| 欧美xxxx黑人xx丫x性爽| 久99久视频精品免费| av在线老鸭窝| 99久久九九国产精品国产免费| 国产三级中文精品| 久久99热这里只有精品18| 国产黄a三级三级三级人| 性色avwww在线观看| 国产成人欧美在线观看| 国内精品久久久久精免费| 成人精品一区二区免费| 亚洲成人免费电影在线观看| 亚洲精品日韩av片在线观看| 国内毛片毛片毛片毛片毛片| 久9热在线精品视频| 国产成人a区在线观看| 99久久九九国产精品国产免费| 精品人妻1区二区| 哪里可以看免费的av片| 欧美激情在线99| 成人性生交大片免费视频hd| 高清在线国产一区| 欧美日韩瑟瑟在线播放| 国产精品影院久久| 成年女人永久免费观看视频| 国产欧美日韩一区二区精品| 夜夜夜夜夜久久久久| 亚洲在线观看片| 麻豆成人av在线观看| 久久精品国产自在天天线| 免费高清视频大片| 免费人成视频x8x8入口观看| 一进一出抽搐动态| 波多野结衣巨乳人妻| 色哟哟哟哟哟哟| 国产私拍福利视频在线观看| 亚洲av熟女| 夜夜夜夜夜久久久久| 9191精品国产免费久久| 动漫黄色视频在线观看| 国产精品av视频在线免费观看| av在线天堂中文字幕| 日本黄色片子视频| 国产大屁股一区二区在线视频| 国产黄片美女视频| 亚洲精品成人久久久久久| 岛国在线免费视频观看| 成熟少妇高潮喷水视频| 国产毛片a区久久久久| 亚洲av.av天堂| 久久天躁狠狠躁夜夜2o2o| 亚洲人成网站在线播| 欧美高清成人免费视频www| 亚洲专区中文字幕在线| 亚洲精品粉嫩美女一区| 亚洲最大成人手机在线| 真人做人爱边吃奶动态| 97超视频在线观看视频| 级片在线观看| 精品一区二区免费观看| 亚洲国产精品久久男人天堂| 久久精品夜夜夜夜夜久久蜜豆| 99热6这里只有精品| 亚洲一区二区三区色噜噜| 色精品久久人妻99蜜桃| 国内精品一区二区在线观看| 日本a在线网址| 亚洲人成网站高清观看| 欧美黄色片欧美黄色片| 欧美日韩亚洲国产一区二区在线观看| 神马国产精品三级电影在线观看| 无人区码免费观看不卡| 亚洲成人久久性| 亚洲欧美清纯卡通| 亚洲中文字幕日韩| 久久久久九九精品影院| .国产精品久久| 欧美成人性av电影在线观看| 亚洲欧美日韩东京热| 欧美性猛交黑人性爽| 日本三级黄在线观看| 色在线成人网| 首页视频小说图片口味搜索| 村上凉子中文字幕在线| 国产69精品久久久久777片| 91字幕亚洲| 女人十人毛片免费观看3o分钟| 亚洲一区二区三区不卡视频| 免费大片18禁| 久久人妻av系列| 婷婷六月久久综合丁香| 日本在线视频免费播放| 国产蜜桃级精品一区二区三区| 人妻久久中文字幕网| 亚洲自拍偷在线| 久久久久性生活片| 欧美日本亚洲视频在线播放| 欧美丝袜亚洲另类 | 床上黄色一级片| 久久久久久久亚洲中文字幕 | 成人一区二区视频在线观看| 欧美黑人欧美精品刺激| 高潮久久久久久久久久久不卡| 国产91精品成人一区二区三区| 日韩欧美在线二视频| 午夜福利欧美成人| 色av中文字幕| 草草在线视频免费看| 久久草成人影院| 亚洲自拍偷在线| 99热这里只有是精品在线观看 | 精品午夜福利视频在线观看一区| 人人妻,人人澡人人爽秒播| 麻豆成人午夜福利视频| av在线蜜桃| 桃红色精品国产亚洲av| 永久网站在线| 一级作爱视频免费观看| av在线蜜桃| 久久午夜亚洲精品久久| 999久久久精品免费观看国产| 一本久久中文字幕| 午夜福利在线观看免费完整高清在 | 麻豆一二三区av精品| 亚洲国产欧洲综合997久久,| 免费在线观看日本一区| 国产精品日韩av在线免费观看| 最近最新中文字幕大全电影3| 香蕉av资源在线| 亚洲国产精品久久男人天堂| 久久精品夜夜夜夜夜久久蜜豆| 成人亚洲精品av一区二区| 五月伊人婷婷丁香| 亚洲美女搞黄在线观看 | 91午夜精品亚洲一区二区三区 | 在线播放无遮挡| 琪琪午夜伦伦电影理论片6080| 亚洲三级黄色毛片| 色哟哟·www| 国产av麻豆久久久久久久| 哪里可以看免费的av片| 中文字幕av在线有码专区| a级毛片免费高清观看在线播放| 欧美最黄视频在线播放免费| 亚洲无线在线观看| netflix在线观看网站| 亚洲狠狠婷婷综合久久图片| 韩国av一区二区三区四区| 国产精品精品国产色婷婷| 国产熟女xx| 亚洲av一区综合| 欧美日韩国产亚洲二区| 日日干狠狠操夜夜爽| 日韩精品中文字幕看吧| 成人无遮挡网站| 欧美最新免费一区二区三区 | 一个人看视频在线观看www免费| 国产伦人伦偷精品视频| 亚洲色图av天堂| 亚洲五月天丁香| 久久国产精品影院| 欧美成狂野欧美在线观看| 色哟哟哟哟哟哟| 简卡轻食公司| 亚洲真实伦在线观看| 女人被狂操c到高潮| 自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇| 首页视频小说图片口味搜索| 久久精品久久久久久噜噜老黄 | 国产精品久久久久久久电影| 最近在线观看免费完整版| 国内精品美女久久久久久| 精品一区二区三区视频在线| 日韩欧美国产一区二区入口| 99久久精品国产亚洲精品| 亚洲真实伦在线观看| 一级av片app| 欧美bdsm另类| 色尼玛亚洲综合影院| 国产91精品成人一区二区三区| 男女那种视频在线观看| 国产国拍精品亚洲av在线观看| av专区在线播放| 麻豆国产97在线/欧美| 国产精品野战在线观看| av在线天堂中文字幕| 老司机深夜福利视频在线观看| 日本免费a在线| 日韩国内少妇激情av| 色播亚洲综合网| 国产老妇女一区| 男人和女人高潮做爰伦理| 日本免费一区二区三区高清不卡| 精品无人区乱码1区二区| 亚洲乱码一区二区免费版| 99久国产av精品| 在线观看一区二区三区| 亚洲国产精品久久男人天堂| 五月玫瑰六月丁香| av专区在线播放| 亚洲狠狠婷婷综合久久图片| 久久久久国产精品人妻aⅴ院| 色精品久久人妻99蜜桃| av在线蜜桃| 在线免费观看不下载黄p国产 | 深爱激情五月婷婷| 白带黄色成豆腐渣| 欧美成狂野欧美在线观看| 日韩人妻高清精品专区| 免费看日本二区| 中文字幕人成人乱码亚洲影| 国产大屁股一区二区在线视频| 久久人人爽人人爽人人片va | 一二三四社区在线视频社区8| 麻豆一二三区av精品| 免费大片18禁| 757午夜福利合集在线观看| 18美女黄网站色大片免费观看| 国产精品亚洲一级av第二区| 在现免费观看毛片| 午夜福利高清视频| 很黄的视频免费| 欧美日本亚洲视频在线播放| 欧美黑人欧美精品刺激| 亚洲在线观看片| 成人特级av手机在线观看| 欧美+日韩+精品| 啪啪无遮挡十八禁网站| 午夜两性在线视频| 午夜激情福利司机影院| 日韩中字成人| 久久久久精品国产欧美久久久| 久久久久久久久久黄片| 国产亚洲精品综合一区在线观看| 亚洲aⅴ乱码一区二区在线播放| 亚洲专区国产一区二区| 成人性生交大片免费视频hd| 国产真实伦视频高清在线观看 | 国产精品亚洲一级av第二区| 成年人黄色毛片网站| 又粗又爽又猛毛片免费看| 国产精品伦人一区二区| 国产蜜桃级精品一区二区三区| 午夜精品一区二区三区免费看| 噜噜噜噜噜久久久久久91| 国产免费男女视频| 午夜免费激情av| 亚洲 国产 在线| 国产精品久久久久久久久免 | 精品99又大又爽又粗少妇毛片 | 精品一区二区三区视频在线| 国产午夜精品久久久久久一区二区三区 | 美女黄网站色视频| 在线国产一区二区在线| 毛片一级片免费看久久久久 | 精品久久久久久,| 黄色丝袜av网址大全| 国产成人福利小说| 熟妇人妻久久中文字幕3abv| 俺也久久电影网| 日韩精品青青久久久久久| 亚洲av不卡在线观看| 香蕉av资源在线| 麻豆一二三区av精品| 日日干狠狠操夜夜爽| 夜夜看夜夜爽夜夜摸| 99热6这里只有精品| 在线观看一区二区三区| 精品国内亚洲2022精品成人| 69人妻影院| 久久精品91蜜桃| xxxwww97欧美| 高清日韩中文字幕在线| 免费av观看视频| 欧美黑人巨大hd| 亚洲中文字幕一区二区三区有码在线看| 免费在线观看亚洲国产| av欧美777| 成人美女网站在线观看视频| 一级毛片久久久久久久久女| 午夜两性在线视频| 97超级碰碰碰精品色视频在线观看| 在线观看一区二区三区| 窝窝影院91人妻| 91在线精品国自产拍蜜月| 成年女人看的毛片在线观看| 欧美黄色淫秽网站| 欧美午夜高清在线| 少妇的逼水好多| 性插视频无遮挡在线免费观看| 国产精品综合久久久久久久免费| 欧美日韩亚洲国产一区二区在线观看| 国产国拍精品亚洲av在线观看| 一个人看视频在线观看www免费| 男插女下体视频免费在线播放| av天堂在线播放| 欧洲精品卡2卡3卡4卡5卡区| 国产精品日韩av在线免费观看| 成人国产综合亚洲| 欧美日韩福利视频一区二区| 婷婷色综合大香蕉| 欧美潮喷喷水| 久久亚洲真实| 国产爱豆传媒在线观看| 亚洲美女搞黄在线观看 | 日本精品一区二区三区蜜桃| 国产精品99久久久久久久久| 国产亚洲精品久久久com| 婷婷精品国产亚洲av在线| 高清在线国产一区| 嫩草影院精品99| 亚洲精品一卡2卡三卡4卡5卡| 国产麻豆成人av免费视频| 国产高清激情床上av| 麻豆一二三区av精品| 欧美黑人巨大hd| 欧美+亚洲+日韩+国产| 欧美国产日韩亚洲一区| 欧美日韩中文字幕国产精品一区二区三区| 亚洲av二区三区四区| 亚洲人成电影免费在线| 久久这里只有精品中国| 18+在线观看网站| 国模一区二区三区四区视频| 国产男靠女视频免费网站| 国产大屁股一区二区在线视频| av在线天堂中文字幕| 日本黄色视频三级网站网址| 国产精品伦人一区二区| 国产av不卡久久| 伦理电影大哥的女人| 成人性生交大片免费视频hd| 国产精品av视频在线免费观看| 久久久久久久久中文| 日韩高清综合在线| 亚洲美女黄片视频| 日韩大尺度精品在线看网址| 日韩av在线大香蕉| 日韩免费av在线播放| 成熟少妇高潮喷水视频| 久久久久久国产a免费观看| .国产精品久久| 亚洲成a人片在线一区二区| 99热只有精品国产| 成人高潮视频无遮挡免费网站| 欧美日韩福利视频一区二区| 黄色女人牲交| 国产精品亚洲美女久久久| 欧美色视频一区免费| eeuss影院久久| 亚洲av中文字字幕乱码综合| 在线观看午夜福利视频| 精品人妻1区二区| 亚洲在线自拍视频| 日韩av在线大香蕉| 人人妻,人人澡人人爽秒播| av在线老鸭窝| 欧美zozozo另类| 此物有八面人人有两片| 高清在线国产一区| 亚洲av一区综合| 一区二区三区高清视频在线| 99热这里只有精品一区| 乱人视频在线观看| 色哟哟哟哟哟哟| 欧美高清性xxxxhd video| 国产精品自产拍在线观看55亚洲| 熟女电影av网| 老司机福利观看| 淫秽高清视频在线观看| 精品国产亚洲在线| 亚洲人成网站在线播| 中文字幕熟女人妻在线| 亚洲成人免费电影在线观看| 色综合欧美亚洲国产小说| 90打野战视频偷拍视频| 国产午夜福利久久久久久| 国产精品久久电影中文字幕| 亚洲性夜色夜夜综合| 国产免费一级a男人的天堂| 别揉我奶头 嗯啊视频| 超碰av人人做人人爽久久| 一进一出抽搐gif免费好疼| 国产在视频线在精品| 69人妻影院| 神马国产精品三级电影在线观看| 精品一区二区三区av网在线观看| 国产高清有码在线观看视频| 波多野结衣高清无吗| 欧美一级a爱片免费观看看| 中亚洲国语对白在线视频|