CONMED Corporation reported $342.3 million in sales and $38.2 million in operating profit for the quarter ending June 30, 2025. The revenue exceeded analysts’ estimates; however, the EPS was lower than expected.
CONMED Exceeds Revenue Expectations but EPS Lags
2 min read Premium comments
second quarter 2025 earningsCONMED CorporationPat Beyer
| CONMED Corporation 2025 Report ($000s): 3 Months Ended 06/30/25 | ||||||
| Three Month Sales | Six Month Sales | |||||
| 2024 | 2025 | % Change | 2024 | 2025 | % Change | |
| $332,097 | $342,300 | 3.07% | $644,371 | $663,600 | 2.98% | |
| Op Profit | Op Profit | |||||
| 2024 | 2025 | % Change | 2024 | 2025 | % Change | |
| $47,107 | $38,161 | -18.99% | $82,121 | $54,119 | -34.10% | |
| 14.18% | 11.15% | 12.74% | 8.16% | |||
| EPS | EPS | |||||
| 2024 | 2025 | % Change | 2024 | 2025 | % Change | |
| $0.96 | $0.69 | -28.13% | $1.59 | $0.88 | -44.65% | |
| 2025 Sales Estimate | 2026 Sales Estimate | |||||
| Consensus | Change | Consensus | Change | |||
| $1,340,000 | 2.50% | $1,430,000 | 6.70% | |||
Source: RRY Publications LLC
CONMED’s Q2: BioBrace Flexes, AirSeal Holds Steady, Capital Softens a Bit
CONMED Corporation’s second quarter numbers are in, and the picture is a mix of solid topline growth, orthopedic momentum, and some capital-market headwinds. For the quarter ending June 30, 2025, the company posted $342.3 million in sales and $38.2 million in operating profit, beating revenue expectations but delivering a lower-than-anticipated EPS.
The Heavy Lifters: AirSeal & BioBrace
On the mid-year analyst call, President and CEO Pat Beyer credited worldwide general surgery sales—particularly AirSeal—for pushing revenue beyond the high end of guidance. AirSeal remains the single largest driver of general surgery growth, and, importantly, its recurring revenue profile is shaping CONMED’s long-term growth trajectory.
For orthopedics, the star performer was BioBrace—a biologic implant now being used in 52 different procedures, from ACL repairs and rotator cuff work to Achilles and gluteus medius reconstructions. In Beyer’s words, BioBrace is proving “versatility across sports medicine anatomies” and is keeping CONMED competitive in an otherwise tough orthopedic market share environment.
Foot and Ankle also delivered its third consecutive quarter of growth after supply chain issues were resolved—a reminder that operational cleanup can directly translate to sales momentum.
Strategy and Balance Sheet Discipline
Beyer reiterated that CONMED’s four key growth engines—AirSeal, Buffalo Filter, BioBrace, and Foot and Ankle—are supported by ongoing supply chain improvements, portfolio optimization, and targeted investments. The company is also intent on keeping a strong balance sheet and reducing debt to fuel longer-term expansion.
Capital Sales: A Softer Quarter
When JP Morgan’s Lilia-Celine Lozada asked about softer-than-expected capital sales, Beyer pointed to last year’s unique boosts:
- A competitor recall in the insufflation market in 2024 that temporarily inflated sales.
- Several new international distributors launching last year, creating a one-time capital lift.
- This year, supply chain constraints added further drag.
Despite the dip, Beyer said hospital demand remains steady and the capital market is “where it has been”—just without last year’s extra tailwinds.
Outlook
Even with Q2 revenue beats, Piper Sandler questioned why CONMED only raised the bottom end of guidance. CFO Todd Garner explained that the remainder of 2025 is expected to bring gradual improvement, suggesting a measured, controlled climb rather than a hockey-stick rebound.
BioBrace is gaining surgical mindshare and driving procedural diversity. AirSeal continues to anchor general surgery growth. Foot and Ankle is back in form. Capital sales are softer, but mostly due to one-off comps and supply constraints—not a systemic slowdown. If CONMED can sustain BioBrace’s momentum while optimizing operations, they may turn 2025’s steady growth into a stronger 2026 performance.
React:
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.