Stryker Corporation announced on Wednesday January 25, 2017 that sales for the fourth quarter ended December 31, 2016 rose 6.7% (excluding currency and acquisitions). Sales for the quarter were $3.157 billion, which is up from $2.715 billion reported in last year’s quarter.
Stryker Posts 6.7% Fourth Quarter Sales Increase

Stryker Corporation, which is based in Kalamazoo, Michigan, is one of the largest orthopedics companies in the world and has products in every sector of the orthopedic market. For the full year of 2016, sales were $11.3 billion, up from $9.9 billion in 2015. The following table shows the sales details for 2016.
Wall Street Analyst Joanne Wuensch of BMO Capital Markets Corp. said: Mako! Mako! Mako! And went on to say, “In the [fourth quarter of 2016], the company sold 32 robots including 24 in the U.S. bringing the total numbers to 381 worldwide with 333 in the U.S. This placement will create the base for the next phase of Mako adoption, or the introduction of the Mako Total Knee at the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons 2017 annual meeting”.
Mike Matson, an analyst with Needham & Company, LLC however said, “Clearly [the fourth quarter of 2016] was a solid quarter for [Stryker Corporation], but we remained concerned about investor expectations for Mako and a slowdown in hospital capital spending, following an [Affordable Care Act] repeal/replacement and maintain our Underperform rating.”
Kevin A. Lobo, chairman and chief executive officer, said in a press release, “I am pleased with our performance in both the fourth quarter and the full year 2016. Fourth quarter organic sales growth of 6.7% versus a strong prior year is impressive and was balanced across Orthopaedics, MedSurg and Neurotechnology and Spine.”
For 2017, the analysts are now forecasting that sales will rise 7-8% and reach about $12.2 billion for the year. The sector that most analyst think will grow the fastest is MedSurg with Reconstructive growing the slowest.

Discussion
This is a fascinating development. In my practice we've seen similar outcomes with the revised protocol. The key differentiator seems to be patient selection criteria. Has anyone else noticed the correlation with BMI thresholds?
Great point. I'd push back slightly on the conclusion, the sample size in the cited study is too small to draw population-level inferences. That said, the directional signal is compelling and worth a larger RCT.
We implemented a similar approach last year. Early results are promising but we're still gathering 12-month follow-up data. Happy to share our protocol if anyone is interested.
Join the conversation
Orthopedic professionals are discussing this. Sign in and upgrade to read every comment and add your voice.