(IART)
Q1 2026 Earnings-Transcript
Integra LifeSciences Holdings Corporation beats earnings expectations. Reported EPS is $0.54, expectations were $0.41.
Operator: Good day, and welcome to Integra LifeSciences First Quarter 2026 Financial Results. [Operator Instructions] Also note, this call is being recorded. I would now like to turn the call over to Chris Ward, Senior Director of Investor Relations. Please go ahead.
Christopher Ward: Good morning, and thank you for joining the Integra LifeSciences First Quarter 2026 Earnings Conference Call. Joining me on the call are Stuart Essig, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer; and Lea Knight, Chief Financial Officer. This morning, we issued 2 press releases, the first announcing the CEO transition and other organizational changes and the second announcing our first quarter 2026 financial results. The releases and earnings presentation that we will reference during the call are available at integralife.com under Investors, Events and Presentations and a file named First Quarter 2026 Earnings Call Presentation. Before we begin, I want to remind you that many statements made during this call may be considered forward-looking.
Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially are discussed in the company’s Exchange Act reports filed with the SEC. Also in our prepared remarks, we will reference reported and organic revenue growth. Organic revenue growth excludes the effects of foreign currency, acquisitions and divestitures. Unless otherwise stated, all disaggregated and franchise level revenue growth rates are based on organic performance. Lastly, our comments today will include certain non-GAAP financial measures. Reconciliations of non-GAAP financial measures are included in today’s press release, which is an exhibit to Integra’s current report on Form 8-K filed today with the SEC. And with that, I will now turn the call over to Stuart.
Stuart Essig: Thank you, Chris. Before we turn to the quarter, I want to address the leadership change that we announced this morning. As you have seen from our announcement, I have stepped back into the role as President and CEO and will retain my current role as Chairman. I want to thank Mojdeh Poul for her leadership and for the meaningful progress made during her tenure. Under her leadership, the company advanced a number of important initiatives, including enterprise-wide portfolio and program prioritization, risk-based approach to quality remediation work, operations resiliency improvements and the more recent transformation and business process optimization efforts. Those efforts matter, and they are progressing well, and we remain fully committed to them.
As I step back into the CEO role, my focus will be on strengthening the culture of the organization while increasing our customer and commercial focus. We want to be more connected to our customers, more aligned with the field, more collaborative across functions and clearer and faster in our execution. We are building on the important work already underway while improving how we work together and how quickly we make things happen. We remain committed to the quality, compliance, capacity and transformation work underway across the company. That work is progressing well and remains central to how we improve performance and build a stronger Integra. As we also announced this morning, Mike McBreen has been appointed Chief Commercial Officer. Some of you already know Mike well.
He is exceptionally well suited for this role with more than 30 years of commercial experience in the medical technology industry. This newly created role is an important part of how we move forward, and Mike will help drive the next phase of our commercial organization. This move reflects the importance we place on making sure the commercial organization has a strong voice at the leadership table and that customer and market-facing priorities are fully represented in how we operate and make decisions. This is not about changing direction in the commercial organization. It is about raising its profile, strengthening leadership support around it and better positioning us to succeed. Our commercial teams have many strengths, and Mike’s expanded role is intended to help us build on that momentum, sharpen execution and support stronger coordination across the market-facing parts of the business.
This appointment also reflects something broader that matters deeply to me as I return to the CEO role. I want to make sure we are developing the next layer of leadership across the company and giving strong leaders the opportunity to take on larger responsibilities. Mike’s new role as CCO supports that objective and will allow me to devote more direct time and attention to the areas that still require the greatest focus. This is the kind of leadership model that I want to reinforce across Integra, one that is customer-centered, commercially aware, collaborative, accountable and focused on helping the organization succeed. We want our support functions and leadership teams working in a way that enables the business, supports the field and drives results.
That is a cultural tone we intend to reinforce. I also want to be clear that I’m not stepping in as a transitional CEO. I am assuming this role with a long-term commitment and deep familiarity with the company and its operations. I have served Integra in various capacities as CEO, Executive Chairman and Chairman for almost 30 years. Over the past 2 years, I have been actively involved in key initiatives as Executive Chairman, including active oversight of key operational and quality matters. These included the implementation of the Compliance Master Plan, the Integra Skin capacity expansion, the initiation of the Braintree facility program and direct communication with investors about the company’s progress and path forward. I know this company deeply.
I understand what it takes to run it, and I have a clear view of what I believe it will take to move Integra forward from here. So the message today is straightforward. The important work already underway is continuing. It’s going well, and it remains central to building a stronger Integra. At the same time, we are sharpening our focus on culture, customers and commercial execution at the top of the organization. I remain confident in both the progress we’ve made and the opportunity ahead. It is an honor and a privilege to lead this fine organization once again. With those important announcements in mind, I’d like to now turn to our results on Slide 4. We had a very strong first quarter, and the team demonstrated what it can achieve as we continue to improve product availability.
For the first quarter, we delivered total revenue of $392 million and adjusted earnings per share of $0.54, both above the high end of our guidance ranges. Based on our first quarter performance and the strengthening of our foundation, we are maintaining our 2026 revenue guidance of $1.66 billion to $1.7 billion and updating our adjusted earnings per share guidance to a range of $2.40 to $2.50. Lea will now walk through our first quarter results and guidance in more detail.
Lea Knight: Thank you, Stuart. Good morning, everyone. I’d like to first thank our team for their contributions to our first quarter results. We delivered strong revenue and adjusted earnings per share in the quarter, reflecting solid product demand, improving supply execution and remediation and the continued positive impact of our transformation. These results were made possible by the foundational work we have implemented over the past year, setting us up for better visibility and execution against our commitments. We are seeing that work translate into more consistent, predictable performance, exactly what we set out to achieve. Turning to Slide 5, I will cover our first quarter financial results. Our first quarter revenues were $392 million, representing an increase of 2.4% on a reported basis and an organic increase of 1.3%, reflecting continued strong demand for our portfolio, improved supply, increased visibility and strong performance in tissue reconstruction.
Adjusted EPS for the quarter was $0.54 compared to $0.41 in the prior year, primarily due to revenue growth, favorable product mix and savings driven by our recent transformation activities. We also saw a $0.02 net tariff benefit driven by the anticipated IEPA refund, partially offset by non-IEPA tariffs expensed in the period. Gross margin for the quarter was 64.1%, up 190 basis points from the prior year, reflecting favorable product mix, IEPA tariffs and reductions in remediation costs. Adjusted EBITDA margin was 19.4%, up 280 basis points versus Q1 2025, with the above-name factors impacting gross margins with additional benefits from our recent transformation. Cash flows from operations totaled $9.8 million in the first quarter and capital expenditures were $14.8 million.
Before transitioning to our segment performance, you likely noticed in this morning’s earnings press release that we are renaming our global business segments. Codman Specialty Surgical will now be called Specialty Surgery, and Tissue Technologies will now be called Tissue Reconstruction. Our product brand names will remain unchanged. Turning to Slide 6. We’ll take a deeper dive into our Specialty Surgery revenue highlights for the first quarter. Specialty Surgery revenues was $283 million, up 0.9% on a reported basis, including a 140 basis point benefit from foreign exchange. On an organic basis, revenue was down 0.6% compared to the prior year. Global Neurosurgery delivered 1.9% organic growth, supported by broad demand strength, including Certas Plus, CUSA and BactiSeal, and we expect supply reliability and fulfillment to continue to improve.
Sales of capital equipment grew low single digits, benefiting from continued capital funnel strength, including double-digit growth in CUSA and CereLink. Instruments posted a high single-digit decline, primarily due to order timing, which can vary quarter-to-quarter. We do expect growth for the full year. In ENT, revenue declined low single digits, reflecting strong growth in MicroFrance ENT instruments, offset by continued pressure in sinus balloons and commercial disruption impacts in other products. Revenue in our international markets declined low single digits as continued demand was offset by supply timing in the first quarter. Moving to our Tissue Reconstruction segment on Slide 7. Tissue Reconstruction revenues were $109 million, representing 6.7% growth on a reported and 6.4% on an organic basis compared to the prior year.
The strong growth was partially offset by the impact of MediHoney, where we recorded sales for MediHoney in the first quarter of 2025 prior to the recall. In the first quarter, sales within our wound reconstruction franchise increased 6.2%. This robust performance was primarily fueled by double-digit growth in Integra Skin, mid-double-digit growth in DuraSorb and the PriMatrix launch. These results include a favorable comparison on Integra Skin, but also underscore the momentum we are seeing in our Wound Reconstruction business, and we remain highly optimistic about the continued growth in this segment. I’d like to now spend a few moments discussing the recent changes in Medicare reimbursement for skin substitutes. I want to provide clarity on what these changes mean and what they don’t mean for our business.
In the first quarter, CMS implemented several important changes to Medicare reimbursement rates and related billing rules for skin substitutes in the outpatient wound reconstruction market. Currently, approximately 90% of our Wound Reconstruction revenue is generated from the inpatient market. The inpatient market is not impacted by these changes. We remain excited by and confident about the inpatient market and the strength of our portfolio and market position. We do believe over time, the updated reimbursement framework will level the economic playing field and create upside opportunities for us. Our portfolio is priced in line with the new reimbursement rate with multiple size options available and supported by strong clinical evidence. We are already seeing increased demand from physicians for education and clarity on appropriate product selection, sizing and clinical considerations.
Our market access and commercial teams are actively engaging customers as they adapt to the new reimbursement landscape, and we are seeing early indicators of incremental volume opportunities. Overall, we remain confident in our differentiated position in wound reconstruction, where we have the optimal portfolio to address a wide range of clinical needs and the economic value to compete effectively in both inpatient and outpatient markets. During the first quarter, private label sales increased 7.1%. This growth was primarily driven by a favorable comparison to the prior year. Finally, international sales in tissue reconstruction declined high single digits, reflecting double-digit growth in Integra Skin, which was offset by MediHoney. If you turn to Slide 8, I will provide a brief update on our balance sheet, capital structure and cash flow.
Operating cash flow for the first quarter, which is historically our lowest quarter of the year, was $9.8 million, a $21 million improvement over the first quarter of 2025. This positive trend aligns with our full year expectation of an approximate $150 million increase in operating cash flow compared to 2025, driven by improvements in EBITDA, working capital and significantly reduced expenditures related to EU MDR compliance and the start-up costs for the Braintree facility. Free cash flow for the quarter was negative $5 million with a free cash flow conversion rate of negative 12.1%. As of March 31, net debt was $1.6 billion, and our consolidated total leverage ratio was 4.1x within our current maximum allowable leverage of 5x. We expect to continue reducing our leverage over the course of the year, approaching the upper end of our target leverage range of 2.5 to 3.5x by the end of 2026.
The company had total liquidity of approximately $488 million, including approximately $266 million in cash and short-term investments, with the remainder available under our revolving credit facility. Turning to Slide 9. I will provide our consolidated revenue and adjusted earnings per share guidance for the second quarter and full year 2026. For the second quarter, we expect revenues to be in the range of $410 million to $425 million, representing reported growth of minus 1.3% to positive 2.3% and organic growth of a range of minus 1.5% to positive 2.1% — turning to the full year 2026. We are maintaining our revenue and organic growth guidance of $1.66 billion to $1.7 billion and 0.8% to 3.3%, respectively. We expect reported revenue growth in a range of 1.6% to 4.1%, which continues to reflect an approximate 80 basis point annual foreign exchange tailwind.
The first half revenue at the midpoint of our guidance of approximately $809 million gives us confidence in our full year expectations. We anticipate a sequential increase in revenues as we progress through the year with an approximate $26 million step-up in the second quarter, driven by normal seasonality, supply improvement and instrument order timing. We then expect modest sequential growth in the third quarter and a further increase in the fourth quarter. This cadence is consistent with our typical seasonal pattern and underscores the improving stability and predictability of our revenue trends. Turning to adjusted earnings per share guidance for the second quarter and full year. For the second quarter, we expect adjusted earnings per share in the range of $0.44 to $0.52, representing approximately 6% growth at the midpoint.
For the full year, we are updating our adjusted earnings per share guidance by $0.10 to a range of $2.40 to $2.50 as a result of favorable tariff outcomes in the first quarter relative to our February guidance. Our operational expectations for the year remain unchanged from our original full year guidance. At the midpoint of our updated guidance range, we now expect gross margins and adjusted EBITDA margins to improve 60 basis points and 100 basis points, respectively, compared to 2025. For your reference, we have included the key assumptions underlying our second quarter and full year guidance as well as the key modeling inputs on Slide 10. With that, I will now turn the call back to Stuart.
Stuart Essig: Thank you, Lea. Before moving to Q&A, I would like to highlight our key takeaways from the first quarter. We are pleased with the performance as we saw strong growth for tissue reconstruction and several of our key products within Specialty Surgery. We continue to execute our foundational and systemic transformation plan to drive consistent durable performance over the long term. We are looking forward to starting production at our Braintree facility by the end of June and relaunching SurgiMend by the end of the year, while we continue to advance the PMA strategy for both SurgiMend and DuraSorb for implant-based breast reconstruction. Together, these products will strengthen our position in the large and growing $800 million implant-based breast reconstruction market with a biologic as well as a resorbable synthetic solution, representing a meaningful future growth opportunity.
We remain confident in our ability to deliver on our 2026 financial commitments, and are equally excited about the longer-term opportunities ahead for Integra. With a strong position in attractive specialized markets, a more capable and aligned organization and a pipeline of clinical evidence and new products, I am excited about this opportunity to lead Integra again. And I believe the company is well positioned to create significant value for all of our stakeholders. With that, operator, please open the line for questions.
Receive real-time insider trading and news alerts
Operator: [Operator Instructions] First question comes from Matt Taylor with Jefferies.
Matthew Taylor: Stuart, welcome back, and I’d love to hear a little bit more about why this is the right time for this transition. And any differences in your approach versus prior management in terms of how to execute on the significant priorities you have in this compliance plan and the recovery of the products that have been out of the market.
Stuart Essig: Thank you, Matt, and I am excited to be back speaking with the analysts again. I think by my count, this is my 57th earnings call. So hopefully, I can do as well as we did a few years ago. Let me first talk about Mojdeh.Mojdeh’s decision to step down was mutual between her and the Board. We had differences in certain strategic topics, but the transformation initiatives that we put in place remain the right ones and they’re going to continue. All the initiatives taken under Mojdeh’s tenure were approved by me as well as the full Board, and they continue unchanged. I really do appreciate Mojdeh’s contributions, and I’m confident with the transition and how it will move smoothly. Going forward, my focus is on execution and going on the offense commercially as we’re in a stronger position to meet customer needs.
I’m also excited about Mike McBreen’s role stepping into the Chief Commercial Officer’s role, so we can present a consistent face to customers. Do you have a follow-up, Matt?
Matthew Taylor: Yes. Maybe just on a different topic. You provided some color on the call for Q2 and the phasing here. I just wanted to better understand key assumptions around the step-up in revenue through the year? And then what’s weighing on earnings in Q2 and how that evolves through the second half as well?
Lea Knight: Yes. Certainly. Thanks for the question, Matt. So to your point, Q1, we had a very good quarter. We were pleased to see a lot of the foundational work that we’ve been doing to strengthen our quality management system, improve supply reliability is really translating into more consistent execution. To your point around Q2, right, and how we move through the year, we do expect a sequential step-up as we move from Q1 into Q2. That will be driven by some of the normal seasonality that we see coupled with improving supply reliability as well as some instrument order timing. As we move from Q2, we expect Q3 to be fairly consistent with Q2, which is where we’ve been in prior years, the exception being a year ago where we did have some unique supply interruptions.
But we do expect Q3 to be in line with Q2, and then we’ll see a further step-up in Q4, which again is consistent with some of our historical patterns. I think the other part of your question related to kind of profitability in Q2 relative to what we actualized in Q1. And a lot of that is driven by expectations that we have for how gross margins will move throughout the balance of the year. So let me step through that. On a full year basis, we are now expecting gross margins to be about 62.5%. In Q2, we’ll see gross margins below that. We’ll see a little bit of a step-up in Q3 in gross margins and then Q4 will step up even more meaningfully to be above that full year average. The variability that we see in gross margins are largely driven by evolving assumptions in terms of tariffs as well as manufacturing variances that will have an impact and create that variation quarter-to-quarter.
So hopefully, that addresses your profitability question. But if not, let me know.
Stuart Essig: Yes, I’ll just summarize by saying — I’m just going to summarize by saying it’s steady as she goes on the transformation. We’re well on our way and things are improving. And we’re confident enough that we can start what I think of as doubling down on our commercial folks being able to go out and speak with customers and be confident that they’ve got supply in many of our products.
Operator: Our next question comes from Jayson Bedford with Raymond James & Associates.
Jayson Bedford: Welcome back, Stu. Maybe just to tag on the last question, what is the status of the Compliance Master Plan? And is there a way to kind of level set us on what products are on ship fold and when you’d expect these products to come off?
Lea Knight: Yes. So let me start, Jayson, on that. As we’ve mentioned, right, we’ve been making very good progress through the Compliance Master Plan. We’ve completed our site assessments. We’ve been doing our mediation work, which is well underway. We mentioned that, that remediation work would continue into 2026. And we’re pleased with the results that we’re seeing to date. As I mentioned, we see improving supply availability, which has allowed us to more consistently meet demand, which is a driver of some of the execution that we saw in Q1, and it will be a driver of how we deliver against our full year outlook. At this point, our full year guide right now doesn’t assume a meaningful contribution from returning products back to the market that aren’t already on the market. So that does not become a big feature, if you will, or element in terms of driving our full year performance.
Jayson Bedford: Okay. That’s helpful. Maybe just as a second question here. I appreciate the increased focus on the commercial side of the business. I guess the question is, does this involve expanding the size of the sales team?
Stuart Essig: So the answer is no. We, in the last several quarters, had the opportunity with the transformation to ensure that our sales teams were focused, had the right staffing and we’re focused on the right customers. It does not imply an increase in sales headcount, and it doesn’t imply a decrease in sales headcount. What it really is, is about coordination of how we present ourselves to our customers and having that centralized under one individual to make sure our divisions are presenting themselves consistently. One of the real advantages that Integra has with our neuro business or our Codman business is that it is so present in most hospitals that it gives us access to many hospitals that wound care companies can’t always get into.
So the opportunity to drive collaboratively our 2 divisions, use the relationships we have on the Codman side to continue to drive our hospital-based wound care business into the sites. And then furthermore, we have GPO relationships with almost every major GPO, again, from our Codman business and particularly with the changes going on with wound care reimbursement, having access to the hospital market and the GPO market is going to be critical.
Operator: Our next question comes from Ryan Zimmerman with BTIG.
Ryan Zimmerman: Stuart, welcome back. I want to ask about a few different things. Stuart, there’s no question, I think you know the company, you have the history to — given your tenure with the company. But as you think about the composition of Integra today, the segments you’re in, the businesses you’re in, do you view every single one of them as the right ones? Is there a portfolio optimization that you see that needs to be done, whether that’s expanding into certain markets, leaving certain markets? I’m just curious kind of as you sit here today, kind of what your view of the portfolio of the company is.
Stuart Essig: All right. Thank you, Ryan. First of all, it’s nice to be working with you again. I think you and I are dating ourselves. You may be one of the few analysts on this call who actually covered the company when I was CEO last. And if you go back to when I retired as CEO in 2012, one of the things we did shortly thereafter is a major portfolio review. And at the time, we concluded we couldn’t be in the top 1, 2 or 3 spots in orthopedics, and we spun off our spine business to our shareholders, and we sold our Extremity business. Subsequent to that, we’ve done a number of divestitures, typically smaller ones, one of a commodity wound care line, and we exited all of our dental disposable business. So I want to be clear, Integra is always looking at the portfolio and always trying to make sure that we’ve got the right products to be able to be competitive.
So then to answer your question, at the moment, I like the markets we’re in. For the most part, they’re niche markets. We have opportunity to be in the top 1, 2 or 3, particularly in neuro, ENT and in surgical wound care. And so I’m not expecting any portfolio movements in the near future. Again, like always, we’ll look at individual product lines. And if they’re not profitable, we can discontinue them or harvest them. But I like the mix. We’re in very defensible markets, and we have an opportunity to grow, particularly as we get our product availability back to where it used to be.
Ryan Zimmerman: Understood. Appreciate that. And Lea, very pointed comments on outpatient wound care. I appreciate clarifying the exposure to the outpatient side of things relative to inpatient. When you sit here today and given what we’re seeing in the wound care market, particularly on the outpatient side, it sounds as though you’re going to kind of let things settle and kind of come to you as it may on the outpatient side, where you see opportunity. But I’m just curious, as you think about what Bob has in his portfolio and the scale you need to bring to compete in outpatient wound, appreciating that you’re not going to hire sales forces to focus on that. I guess what is your view of kind of how you capitalize on the outpatient wound opportunity as the market kind of settles out? And what do you need to do to become bigger in that market if that’s truly what you guys want to pursue?
Lea Knight: Yes. So thanks for the question, Ryan. A couple of things. So to your point around our portfolio and maybe what makes us unique and from our perspective, creates the opportunity for us to drive upside on that part of our business. As you know, across our portfolio, we have a couple of things. We have product price, size and science that work to our advantage. From a product perspective, we have a broad portfolio that offers clinicians choices in terms of how they treat patients. From a price perspective, our product has already been priced at levels that are in line with the new reimbursement rates of $127 per square centimeter. So we haven’t had to change our pricing nor have we seen any impact on our margins as it relates to this outpatient space.
From a size perspective, we have multiple sizes, including small sizes that allows us to minimize some of the wastage that others have been experiencing in this evolving landscape. And then from a science perspective, our portfolio is backed by strong clinical evidence that lends itself to building confidence in terms of delivering the desired outcomes. And so for us, what that means in short is right now, we’re evaluating what’s happening in terms of changes in where these where treatment is occurring. To the extent it remains in the outpatient setting, the position of our portfolio allows us to play there, recognizing that there will be other competitors that can no longer play in that space, right? So we remain viable in ways that competition won’t.
To the extent we see procedures or volumes moving in the inpatient setting, where 90% of our business already is, we believe we’re also well positioned to take advantage of that, right? You saw in our results across wound reconstruction, if we just look at the products that are in that space, we delivered low double-digit growth in Q1, right? So we’re well positioned to take advantage of demand as it flows into the inpatient setting should that happen. So there’s a little bit of a wait and see, Ryan, right? We’re going to see kind of how the market evolves. But we do think we’re well positioned from a product portfolio perspective, along with kind of the strength that we already have in inpatient. And then again, as that market evolves, if we need to pivot to continue to capture it, we’ll make those necessary changes.
Operator: Our next question comes from Lawrence Biegelsen with Wells Fargo.
Ross Osborn: This is actually Ross Osborn on for Larry. So going back to guidance, you guys had a nice revenue beat in the quarter. How should we view the reiteration of revenue guidance for the year? Is this conservatism? Or are there incremental headwinds we should be thinking about since you established guidance at the beginning of the year?
Lea Knight: So no, to your point, we were pleased with how this year started. We saw solid demand across much of the portfolio, along with an improving supply reliability outlook that drove what you saw in terms of our Q1 performance above the high end of our guide. That said, we are still early in the year, and there’s still more work to do. If you look through the first half, our guide is exactly where we expected it to be. So at this point, we believe maintaining a balanced and disciplined approach in terms of our full year guidance is both prudent and appropriate.
Ross Osborn: Okay. That makes sense. And then how is adoption of CUSA trended for the surgical market? And what types of procedures are you seeing traction since your clearance last year?
Lea Knight: I’m sorry, Rob, can you repeat the first half of that question? How is the adoption of what?
Ross Osborn: CUSA since the surgical clearance, I think, in November of last year.
Stuart Essig: CUSA Okay. Got it.
Lea Knight: So how is the adoption of CUSA — and then the second part of the question was?
Ross Osborn: Yes. Just what types of procedures you’re seeing initial traction with?
Lea Knight: So from a Q1 perspective, overall performance across our business was largely in line, certainly in our tissue reconstruction side of the business, but we did see upside, specifically in the neurosurgery side of the business, and that upside was driven in part by CUSA. So demand for us there continues to remain strong, and we’re pleased with kind of how that product is performing along with how we expect it to contribute on a full year basis.
Stuart Essig: One thing I’ll add, over the last 3 or 4 months, I visited Integra’s sales team in Japan and Korea and India. And in those markets, CUSA is very in demand for gynecology, for liver surgery and increasingly for cardiosurgery. And so the opportunity to drive those into the U.S. market where we have clearances now is a big opportunity for our U.S.-based sales force. It’s — there’s published papers internationally. There’s key opinion leaders internationally. And so we have confidence the product is going to work well when those clinicians in the U.S. have it available to them.
Operator: Our next question comes from Robbie Marcus with JPM.
K. Gong: This is Alan on for Robbie. I had one question just on the products that you’re expecting to bring back to market as we look at the back half of the year and into 2027. I think you’ve been off the market for a decent amount of time now. So what gives you confidence that you’re going to be able to — or I guess, like what are your expectations for share recapture once you get these products back onto the market and your ability to both recapture share and get back on the offensive?
Lea Knight: Yes. So a couple of things. So one, from a full year guide perspective, I do want to be clear on this. Our guide does not require or rely on bringing back to market products that currently are off in a meaningful way, right? So we do have obviously assumed the — what we’ve already announced as a return to market assumption around SurgiMend. That will come back in Q4. But again, it’s not necessarily a material contributor to our full year guide. To your point, we are being very thoughtful, right, around how we approach that return to market. We’re leveraging the learnings from PriMatrix and Durepair. If you recall, we brought them back in Q4 of 2025 after having been off the market for over 2 years. And we’re excited about the uptake that we’re starting to see for both of those products.
We continue to get good positive feedback from physicians as we started to recapture some of our prior users. And so that relaunch in Q4 of 2025 and the continued demand that we’re seeing for those products as we move into 2026 is absolutely informing how we’re thinking about the SurgiMend relaunch. We understand this is going to be a multi-quarter journey in order to get back our share. But we also know that the market dynamics for both PriMatrix and SurgiMend have changed meaningfully since they were both in the market last, right? And so this isn’t just about getting our shelf space back. We believe there’s additional upside opportunities that we can take advantage of. For PriMatrix, it’s because of what’s happening in the evolving outpatient wound setting.
And for SurgiMend, it’s the opportunity that exists in terms of implant-based breast reconstruction and the work we’re doing to secure our PMA. So we’re excited about the outlook on both. But again, as it relates to 2026, does not require a meaningful contribution from the return of SurgiMend to the market.
K. Gong: Got it. And then I just wanted to follow up a question previously on earnings and the earnings cadence, right? I think relative to expectations, you — and your own guidance, you came in close to $0.10 above the top end of the range. And it sounds like tariffs should potentially be a tailwind to the balance of the year as well. So when we think about the delta between that proved outlook, the better performance you got in first quarter and the benefit from the tariff rebate and the fact that you only raised the guide by $0.10, should we think of that those manufacturing variances you talked about as being the primary driver of that shortfall? Or is there anything else that you would think that you should call out that we should be aware of?
Lea Knight: Yes. Yes, certainly. So let me step through that because you asked a number of questions in there. First, in terms of our EPS performance for Q1, — we did perform above the high end of our guide. It was driven by a couple of factors. It was driven by stronger-than-expected revenue, along with the $0.10 benefit from tariffs that we talked about. And in addition to that, also some margin improvement that is reflective of the transformation efforts that we have underway. So all 3 contributed to that result. It’s worth noting because even ex tariffs, we performed close to the high end of our guide. To your point on tariffs and expectation for the balance of the year, we did adjust our full year EPS outlook by that same $0.10 to reflect the benefits that have been realized as it relates to tariffs.
We also outlined our tariff assumptions as part of the earnings deck, so you can see what we’re assuming for the balance of the year. It is possible that we’ll continue to see additional favorability as it relates to tariffs as we move throughout the year. We have not reflected possible benefits in our full year updated adjusted EPS at this point. It’s still very early in the year. There’s still a lot we expect to unfold when it comes to tariff policy. And so as that unfolds, we’ll update appropriately.
Operator: Our next question comes from Ravi Misra with Truist Securities.
Ravi Misra: Just on — 2 questions for me. So first, just on PMA timing in breast recon and just kind of commercialization prospects, assuming you get those, could you provide some more detail? And then I have a follow-up.
Stuart Essig: Sure. So first of all, SurgiMend is expected to be ready for pre-approval inspection in the second half of 2026 following our Braintree restart. The actual PMA approval timing depends on the FDA review process, which obviously is not in our control. We do expect SurgiMend’s PMA to be approved sometime in 2027, and we expect approval for DuraSorb shortly thereafter in the same year, so also 2027. Our view of implant-based breast reconstruction surgery as a long-term growth opportunity is very impactful, and we expect meaningful contribution beginning in 2027 and beyond. And again, just to reiterate, there’s no contribution from the PMAs in our 2026 guidance.
Ravi Misra: Great. And then just, I guess, another one on the tissue recon business and wound recon, kind of what you’re seeing in the inpatient setting. That growth that you kind of disclosed, is that a function of really market and procedures going into inpatient or more so you capturing more share disproportionately in the quarter?
Lea Knight: Yes. Thanks. So overall, across our tissue reconstruction business, we grew kind of high single digits. And then if you look at just the products that are in wound reconstruction, that’s where I cited earlier, we were up low double digits. From a year-on-year perspective, we did benefit from a favorable comparison based on supply availability for Integra Skin. So that is a function of the performance that we’re seeing. We do continue to see strong underlying demand in terms of procedures in that space that has continued through 2026.
Stuart Essig: So I’ll just add 2 points in terms of the way in which the selling process works. So first of all, as it relates to Integra Skin, because of our issues with manufacturing over the last few years, it’s been tough for our sales team to open new accounts. Their objective is to make sure that the existing accounts are well stocked with our products, so they’re available for surgery. As the sales force develops greater confidence in our ability to manufacture, and they should be getting that confidence based on production in the last few quarters, they’ll be more comfortable bringing the product to new customers and ensuring that additional customers feel confident using the product. So there is a time frame over which — we’ve got to get our sales force comfortable and we’ve got to get customers comfortable for availability.
But that should and will increase over time. Similarly, one of the exciting things about bringing PriMatrix back is — and this is really anecdotal, but I’ve heard from a number of our salespeople that bringing PriMatrix back into certain accounts has also driven growth in our other wound care products. The ability to go into a hospital with a “new product” and for some hospitals, it is new because it hasn’t been there for a few years. It provides an entree for our sales team to talk about our other products. And again, our strategy over the years has been to have the broadest portfolio of surgical reconstruction products for wound care. that allows our reps to not be in particular, selling one thing. Rather, it’s collaborative with the surgeon, it’s consultative, and we don’t — we can offer them lots of different choices for the particular wound that they’re treating.
It gives our reps a lot of credibility with customers.
Operator: Our next question comes from Joanne Wuensch with Citi.
Joanne Wuensch: Stu, great to have you back. I had a question. The tax rebate — sorry, tariff rebates, forgive me. I’m going to assume that went into gross margins, but there is still a fair amount of leverage on SG&A and R&D. Was there anything onetime in there? Or is there anything that we can sort of take as a base case and leverage forward?
Lea Knight: Yes. So let me step through that. So to your point, gross margins for the quarter were 64.1%. It was up 190 basis points versus a year ago. Tariffs did benefit that performance. But even ex tariffs, our gross margins would have been up 140 basis points year-on-year. And that performance was driven in large part by lower remediation costs as well as lower manufacturing variances versus what we saw a year ago. And that’s where, as I gave the cadence earlier about gross margins and performance throughout the year, we will see variability as we move throughout the year from Q1 to Q2 through the back half of the year. That is a function of how manufacturing variances will play out along with tariff impacts. Again, full year basis, we expect gross margins to be 62.5%.
Q2 will be below that. We’ll see a slight step-up in Q3 and then Q4 will be above the full year average to get us back to 62.5% — so that should address your profitability question. If not, let me know. I do want to be clear on one part, and this goes back to the tariff question I got before. The adjustment we made in our full year outlook, again, reflects just the tariff benefit we realized in Q1. There’s been no change to the underlying operational performance of the business. We’re holding to that commitment that we made back in February as it relates to operational dynamics. We’re excited about the performance that we saw in Q1. We think that gives us confidence in terms of our ability to perform against the full year guide. So whether it be top line or bottom line operationally, we remain committed to the full year guide that we communicated from earlier this year.
Operator: Our next question comes from Travis Steed with Bank of America.
Unknown Analyst: I guess to build on Ryan’s question previously, Integra has been an acquisitive company over the last 20 or so years and acquisitions were part of your strategy last time as CEO. How are you thinking about continuing to add to the business either in the markets that you’re currently in or expanding into other markets when would that make sense? And when it does, what kind of opportunities would you be looking at?
Stuart Essig: Okay. A couple of points there. First, in the near term, — our #1 priority is debt reduction and returning our leverage ratio to the target 2.5 to 3.5x levels. And we’ll get there by reducing debt and also driving EBITDA. In the meantime, we’re focused on our organic growth drivers, and we’re strengthening our R&D processes, and we’re increasing program management and execution discipline. I’d mentioned we brought aboard a highly experienced Chief Technology Officer in Q1 to help us accelerate innovation with greater focus, speed and impact. But we will continue to grow through a combination of impactful organic and inorganic levers. As we get our ratio back in order, we will start to look at acquisitions again, but they will always be close to home.
We like the markets that we’re in, neuro, ENT and then tissue reconstruction, and that’s where you’ll see any acquisitions that we do. But I want to be clear, while acquisitions have been a great contributor over the years to Integra, our focus at this moment is on debt paydown and frankly, execution.
Unknown Analyst: Got it. That makes sense. And then just one follow-up. Regarding order timing in instruments and supply timing and general weakness in international markets, how much of that is related to normal seasonality? And how much is related to more macro events like the Middle East conflict or inflation? And if it was — if the impact from macro-related things was seen in the quarter, how much of that was seen? And how should we think about the rest of the year?
Lea Knight: Yes, there was a lot in that question. So let me throw it. As it relates to kind of some of the macro events that are playing out, we didn’t see any material impact to our business in the first quarter as it relates to developments in the Middle East conflict. Our direct revenue exposure in that region is modest. And so based on what we know today, we do not expect to realize a material impact. But obviously, we’re going to continue to monitor and see how that unfolds. As it relates specifically to instruments because you asked about that, it’s typical for us to see some variability quarter-to-quarter in that part of the business, and that’s what I was referencing in my remarks regarding an expectation of a sequential step-up in Q2 due to instrument order timing. So on a full year basis, though, we do expect that business to get back to low single-digit growth.
Operator: Thank you. This does conclude the question-and-answer session, and you may now disconnect. Everyone, have a great day.
Receive real-time insider trading and news alerts