NuVasive, Inc. (NUVA) announced on Thursday, July 27, 2017, that sales for the second quarter of 2017 rose 10.3% (excluding currency and acquisitions) or 10.7% on a constant currency basis. Sales for the quarter were $260.6 million, which is up from $236.2 million reported in the second quarter of 2016.
NuVasive Posts 10.3% Second Quarter Sales Increase

NuVasive, which is headquartered in San Diego, California, is a leading medical device company focused on spine surgery. The following table shows the sales details for the second quarter of 2017.
Mike Matson, an analyst with Needham & Company, LLC, said in his report, “Pro forma revenue growth slowed to 5% in [second quarter 2017] from 6% in [first quarter 2017] as biologic sales continued to decline and operational challenges arose from the relocation of a neuromonitoring billing and collection department.”
He added, “Despite NUVA’s slower revenue growth, management still expects revenue growth to accelerate in [second half of 2017] given easier comps, new products, new customer wins, and new sales reps coming off non-competes. We’re skeptical of this however, considering the sequential slowdown and a more competitive MDT [Medical Diagnosis & Therapy] Spine business (which has historically been the largest share donor to NUVA) and we maintain our Hold rating.”
NuVasive Chairman and CEO Gregory T. Lucier, said in a release, “NuVasive delivered better than expected operating profitability and earnings per share results in the second quarter 2017, along with continued strength across our International business, growing at more than 20% for the third quarter in a row.”
“In addition, several of our industry-disrupting technologies completed alpha and beta testing this quarter and will commercially launch over the next few months, giving surgeons and patients access to some of the most innovative technologies to address spine and trauma conditions, as well as radiation reduction in the operating room,” he said.

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.