Saturday, February 26, 2011

And the Beat Goes On

Daryl Hall once sang;

"Do what you want to do, but be what you are, do you believe in hot cars, leather bars and movie stars, is that's what is real, payin' dues, earth shoes, Chicago blues, is that how you feel?  You can't change but you can't conceal, what's deep inside you, it's your game, your deal........"

Yes fellow bloggers on February 23rd, Nuvasive allowed the investment community to see its hand for fiscal 2011.  TSB marvels at how sterile and controlled these analysts' spoon feeding sessions really are, it makes the operating room look like a cleaning room.  What surfaced is the old Aztec-Two Step, whereas NuVa made a modest forecast of 10-12% growth for the upcoming season with the intent of achieving $525 to $535 million in sales. The Bear tempered his exuberance based on a reality check that the days of wine and roses may be coming to an end in lumbar spine, yet felt that NuVa can continue to build on the back of lumbar procedures.  The most interesting aspect was when he announced that NuVa's goal is to become a billion dollar company by riding XLiF all the way to the finish line.   Secretariat wasn't rode this hard.  Based on what was conveyed to the slavish followers that sit in on these calls, lumbar spine is going to take a hit attributed to the many denials that are beginning to surface around the country, yet NuVa continues to work with NASS and the insurance companies in addressing the benefits of emerging technologies in spinal surgery.  Not only does NuVa continue to grow revenue on the back of XLiF, they intend on riding the PCM cervical disc and their biologic products, unfortunately, this may not happen until 2012.

The most entertaining point in the call came when the Bear announced that NuVa saved the life of Bill Walton.  Though Bill once roamed the paint for the Portland Trail Blazers and San Diego Clippers in the NBA, he would probably have appreciated if the Bear had mentioned that he was an honorary member of the Grateful Dead.   It seems that until NuVa came into his life, wild Bill was in so much pain that he was ready to take his own life.  Bill will probably become a spokesman for the company, and every NBA player that needs back surgery will probably ask for the XLiF procedure.  So in closing it will be interesting to follow NuVa in its quest for the Holy Grail of $1 billion.  At $27 per share is NuVa a bargin, or will there be another adjustment?  TSB want to know what our readers think?  As Sonny and Cher use to sing, "and the beat goes on, the beat goes on, the drums keep pounding the rhythm's in my brain, la di da di de, la di, da, de, da."

Monday, February 21, 2011

Grasping At Straws or Just Plain 'Ol Grasping?

On February 18th, 2011 the Big Z reported that it had introduced the spine industry's "FIRST" porous metal cervical device.  One must be amused at the hoopla and gyrations that some of these companies go through for a little bit of publicity, especially when it's really much ado about nothing.

As one of our blogger's stated in an e-mail to TSB, "SO WHAT?"  In all likelihood many industry analysts  may be mesmerized by the magical properties of trabecular metal that will make them believe that the Big Z is on to something big.  TM-S is the first cervical product that incorporates porous metal technology.  But the question must be asked, "have we had any difficulties in fusing the cervical spine with the current state of the art?" Hedrocel as industry veterans know it, has been around for many years.   If TSB's memory serves us correctly, in 2000 Zimmer originally licensed this material from a small company in Allendale, New Jersey known as Implex which was owned and operated by Alex Khowaylo.  In 2003 Zimmer acquired this material from Implex for common stock and a customary cash escrow with the intent of using this material in its hip and knee products.  Hedrocel is a biomaterial that approximates the appearance and porosity of cancellous bone forming a strong bond eliminating the potential for particulate wear debris, hence, Zimmer's original interest in this material.  In retrospect Alex probably laughed all the way to the bank, cashing out and getting rid of Robert Cohen (I believe that was his name), one totally wild and crazy guy. But what is even funnier about this press release is that Zimmer's new President, Steve Healey is quoted as saying, "With the introduction of the TM-S System,  Zimmer is bringing the potential benefits of porous metal technology to cervical interbody fusion."  In addition, "The osteoconductive properties of Trabecular Metal support initial fixation and can potentially aid in cervical fusion."  Let's be realistic, if trabecular metal can potentially aid in cervical fusion, how much better can it really get?  Can we take it from 94% success rate to 100%?  What happens if the patient has other associated medical conditions?  What happens if the patient is a substance abuser, or smoker?  What is the comparative modulus of elasticity of trabecular metal to PEEK?  Making blanket statements in press releases leaves much to the imagination, let alone the credibility of the person making the statements.  So TSB wants to know, is Zimmer blowing smoke at us, or do they really believe their own press clippings, you be the judge.

Friday, February 18, 2011

510(k) Clearances

Allosource:            Allofuse Plus
Apollo Spine:        Eclipse Cervical Vertebral Spacer
Apollo Spine:        Eclipse Lumbar Vertebral Spacer
Baxano:                 IO-Flex Catheter
Carefusion:            Avamax Vertebral Balloon
Eminent Spine:      King Cobra Anterior Cervical Plate (Just what we needed)
Globus Medical:    Caliber Spacer
K2M:                     Caspian Spinal System
Mazor Surgical:     Emerald Spinal System
MSD:                    Cd Horizon Spinal System
Orthovita:              Orthovita Peek Spacer
Synthes:                6.0mm CoCr and CPTi-3 Rods
Synthes:                Norian Drillable Inject Fast Set Putty (is that any different than Slo-Set?)

So here they are fellow bloggers, read 'em and weep/

Wednesday, February 16, 2011

Eureka, I've Found It!!!!!!

The definition of amnesia is that it is a condition whereas one's memory is lost or disturbed.  Functional causes have been identified as psychological factors and it may be influenced by spontaneous episodes.  On January 19th, 2011 it was reported by the San Diego Union Tribune that William Taylor, M.D., a UCSD professor and neurosurgeon had been fined $12,000, by the State of California's Fair Political Practices Commission for failing to report his economic ties to a company that was funding his research project.

It seems that Dr. Taylor forgot to inform and disclose that NuVasive (surprise, surprise, surprise) was providing funding for his research projects. Considering that Dr. Taylor did not intend on keeping this information from the public, could his pre-existing memories have been lost to conscious recollection?  In order to rectify this conflict, Dr. Taylor discontinued his participation in two projects.  But the bigger question that must be asked is whether there is something in the water in California that makes certain surgeons forget the details?  I mean having Dr. Taylor forget to disclose that NuVasive was providing funding for his projects would be like Cher forgetting that she was ever married to Sonny, that Siskel never worked with Ebert, that Penn never performed magic with Teller.  So the question must be asked, does anyone in this industry have any ethics or integrity?

Minsurg: Instant Karma's Gonna Get You

Instant karma's gonna get you, Gonna knock you right on your head
You better get yourself together, Pretty soon you're gonna be dead
What in the world you thinking of, Laughing in the face of love
What on earth you tryin' to do, It's up to you, yeah you.

As recent as December, 2010 Minsurg the company that markets and sells the TruFuse for use in facet fusion surgery sued a number of named defendants who sell competing systems.  Minsurg sought a preliminary injunction against its competitors.  During the evidentiary hearing, Minsurg argued that selling a product that can be used in a "patented method" constituted infringement.  Upon listening to the argument.  Magistrate Judge Jenkins denied the motion.  The decision to deny the motion turned on how important "minimally invasive" was.

Minsurg owns U.S. Patent No. 7,708,761 better known as the "761" patent which protects a method for performing spinal surgery.  The "method" employed insertion of a portal vis-a-vis an MIS opening, accessing the joint space via the portal, insertion of the drill bit, removal of the drill bit, insertion of the dowel or plug, insertion of the tamp, tamping the dowel or plug into place, and removing the tamp.

Legally, Minsurg needed to establish that it was likely to succeed on its merits, would suffer irreparable harm, and the public interest would be best served by granting the injunction.  The major obstacle was that the "761" patent protects a method of performing surgery.  The defendants argued that they were not the surgeons, nor were they performing surgery.  Minisurg claimed that the defendants infringed on the patent, actively induced their customers to practice the method and thereby contributed to the infringement.  The bottom line; to establish an act of direct infringement one must practice the method.  Fortunately for the defendants, they were not performing surgery.

The court did not agree with Minsurg that its competitors induced their customers to infringe on the method.  The court's rationale was that if the surgeons were not utilizing an MIS approach for implantation, and that the implantation of the competitors implants was via an open incision, the competitors were not infringing upon the patented method.  In addition to the court's rationale, the onus was on Minsurg to prove that surgeons that had implanted competitors products had utilized an MIS approach, and since Minsurg had no evidence, they had no argument.  In the end, it was much wasted capital and all to do about nothing.  You know what the great John Lennon sang;

We all shine on, like the moon, and the stars and the sun,  Well we all shine on,  Come on and on and on and on..........

Tuesday, February 15, 2011

Will Globus Medical Go Public?

Recently, there are been speculation as to whether Globus Medical would go public.  As to our knowledge, there has been no S-1 filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.  This information would be available on the website,  This form would contain a complete description of the security and the terms of the sale.  During the last year, word on the Street has been that Globus and Goldman were courting one another for a "dog and pony" show.  Whether or not Goldman will be the underwriter forming the syndicate remains to be seen.  Based on the recent activity at Globus, one can speculate that they are trying their hardest to execute an IPO.  The first sign that Globus was being coached or influenced by an investment bank was when they started to transition their business model from an independent to direct sales force.  Globus was willing to terminate their distribution agreements with some of their largest distributors.  Contrary to popular belief, it is cheaper to maintain a direct sales force than it is to support an independent distribution model.  Margins are much tighter with independent distributors, and investment bankers frown upon tight margins.  As a caveat, any distributor that intends on investing in a start-up company should consider having their own exit strategy because it is just a matter of time and revenue that the company will look to dissolve its relationship while evolving as Globus did.  But, will it be easy for Globus to go public?  Based on the recent activity that has been reported on this blog spot, TSB believes that the albatross that hangs around Globus's neck is that it has been in litigation for patent infringement with multiple companies.  Globus has litigated with Synthes, Warsaw Orthopedics and MDT, and has ongoing litigation with NuVasive.   Not an endearing feature for potential investors.  If anything now would not be the time to take a company public.  Why?

When one evaluates the stock market a booming market doesn't necessarily mean a healthy economy, especially in medical devices.  The market is commoditized and highly competitive yet for the "average investor" the margins are low.  TSB is not predicting a crash.  Yet, there must be some concern when the number of companies on the exchange has decrease by nearly 42% since 2008.  Given this trend, does the potential exist for additional contraction?  The number of IPO's has steadily declined.  So why would Globus be attractive, when most people want to invest in tech stocks like Facebook?  And why would David Paul want to take the company public when he is currently dealing with multiple distractions?  The biggest advantage to running a privately held company is that the management team can concentrate on running the company rather than answering endless questions from analysts and investors.  There is less pressure in meeting your quarterly earnings and the company avoids the regulatory burden of being a publicly run entity.  In the spine industry, legacy companies like MDT, Zimmer, Biomet and NuVasive  enjoy the pomp and circumstance of being publicly traded.

So will Globus go public?   The potential exists.  Will it happen in 2011?  In all likelihood, no.  If anything, TSB believes that Globus could be positioning itself for the sale of the company rather than taking it public, but that will not happen until there is some clarity and direction in the United States healthcare system.   Until then, fasten your seat belts and enjoy the ride.  TSB wants to know what its readers think?

Sunday, February 13, 2011

AAOS: February 16th - 19th San Diego Here We Come

This week, the beautiful city of San Diego welcomes the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons to its annual bone fest.  Considering the amount of social events that have been planned, it's a wonder any surgeon will be walking the exhibitor hall at the SD Convention Center.  The AAOS has planned cooking classes, tours of SoCal vineyards, visits to the naval shipyard, bike rides etc., etc., and so on.  TSB has always wondered why some spine companies attend this Orthopalooza, and why some do not? The only explanation is those that attend find an inherent value, while those that do not leave many unanswered questions and skepticism about their future existence.  For instance, TSB noticed that the V Brothers are missing.  We could understand not showcasing Centinel or Paradigm Spine, but no Small Bone Innovation?  Contrary to the recent "feel good" press releases from Centinel, word on the Street is that there may be some executive management movement in the near future.  If there ever was a venue to showcase a company that you are looking to sell, what better meeting than AAOS?  It is the orthopaedic equivalent of NASS.  Some other interesting news that has surfaced is that there is some grumbling coming out of Biomet Spine.  Last week,  it was reported that some distributors had lost their spine lines.  Could Biomet Spine be sailing into some strong headwinds?  There must be something in the air in Warsaw, Indiana.  Zimmer and Biomet Spine seem to be more of a curse than a psychological burden for these companies.  But then, when it comes to spine, both of these companies truly resemble the gang that couldn't shoot straight.  If these rumors bode well, this could be a great opportunity for some of the smaller companies in our industry to pick off additional distribution resulting in new business.  Globus will be showcasing its new VP of Sales in addition to the recent whooping it took from Medtronic.  The only question that exists is how many more lawsuits will they lose?   Unlike sports or music, in spine imitation is not the best form of flattery.  But then Globus has developed an industry reputation for behaving like a recidivist.   In addition to some of the aforementioned scuttlebutt, rumor has been swirling for weeks that Amedica is on the verge of announcing a new VP of Sales, if true, a rolodex full of former consultants will definitely help the cause.  In closing,  as an FYI for those non-Californians, we've had a bit of cool weather, so bring those jackets and sweaters for the evenings festivities.   The evenings have been in the 40's and the days have been in the 60's and 70's.   See you on Tuesday and don't forget Valentine's Day.  

Thursday, February 10, 2011

Is The FDA Inhibiting Innovation - You Be The Judge

On Wednesday, February 9th, 2011 the NY Times ran an article that questioned the role and efficacy of the FDA as the gatekeeper for approving the commercialization of various products intended to enhance and improve the publics quality of life. Many industry executives and investors believe the time has come to revamp this regulators role. Yet, before the public lynching of the FDA ramps up, understanding the bodies role is integral in delivering safety first when it comes to medical devices.

As the gatekeeper for public health their job is to assure the safety and efficacy of human drugs, biological products, medical devices, and our nations food supply in addition to a few other areas. In addition there role becomes more difficult when one considers that they are also responsible for advancing public health, assist in bringing innovation to the marketplace, ensure safety, and make the delivery of healthcare safe. Essentially, those are two very different responsibilities. Assuring safety and bringing innovation to the market are two very different roles.

For the obvious reasons, investors continue to shout from their financial mountain tops that the FDA is not doing their job, inhibiting innovation, denying Americans supposed state-of-the art devices, and most of all not allowing them to capitalize on their investment in real time so that they could cash out and move on to their next venture. Many entrepreneurs would love less scrutiny in the process. Yet, without entrepreneurs our industry would not grow. So the entire process must be reevaluated. Is the process too slow, or do some of these investors fail to understand the true nature of our business, meaning the patient comes first? As investment capital permeated the device industry the focus centered on financial results rather than the process. There're many examples in our industry that have placed the cart before the horse. Are we willing to compromise safety first for the good of the almighty dollar? TSB is not attacking the investor, but what happens when your mother's hip fails, or your child dies of salmonella poisoning because there is a failure by the FDA to monitor and regulate properly. And what about the many people that have initiated a venture only to fail because of their own inadequacies? It is easier to point fingers at one another instead of sitting down and attempting to work out a mutually agreed upon solution. But then for all the complaining about Obama he has slowly evolved into every entrepreneurs best friend, I guess it's time to start gearing up for the 2012 election. TSB wants to know, how do we fix the system while we protect the patient, and even if we resolve these concerns will U.S. Companies continue to export manufacturing and jobs overseas all for the love of a maximum return on investment?

Wednesday, February 9, 2011

TSB 2 Years and Running

February 11th marks the second anniversary for TSB. Contrary to some blogger's opinion our blog continues to pick up momentum. Last month we had 85,000 viewers and over 50,000 unique visitors. Our forecast for 2011 is over 1 million viewers and at least 650,000 unique visitors. A tremendous thank you must go out to everyone involved in being our eyes and our ears allowing us to keep an honest hand on the pulse of the industry. For those that criticize our honesty and truthiness freedom of speech is the greatest right provided under the U.S. Constitution. Unlike other platforms our objective was, is, and always will be to provide you with an open forum enabling your voices to be heard whether in dissent or affirmation.

What we have learned over the past two years is that we have provided our readers with a realistic analysis of the industry along with an honest expose of the personalities involved. As we move into a new year, our focus will be on the market, how healthcare will continue to shape industry policies and strategies, and how POD's continue to threaten every salespersons right to earn a living in this industry. Once again, thank you.

Friday, February 4, 2011

Warsaw v. Globus The Saga Continues

On January 26th, 2011 the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rendered a nonprecedential decision in the case of WARSAW ORTHOPEDIC, INC., MEDTRONIC SOFAMOR DANEK USA, INC., MEDTRONIC PUERTO RICO OPERATIONS COMPANY and MEDTRONIC SOFAMOR DANEK DEFFENDORF, GMBH, v. GLOBUS MEDICAL. 

Globus Medical appealed a final judgement by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania relating to the patent infringement suit brought by Warsaw Orthopedic. Warsaw asserted three claims of US Patent No. 6,530,929, “the 929 patent,” and two claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,008,422, “the 422 patent.”  The trial jury found each of the five asserted claims valid and infringed.  Following the trial, Globus moved for a “JMOL.”   JMOL is an acronym for judgment as matter or law, meaning that the asserted claims are invalid as anticipated and are not infringed.   The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied Globus’s motion without opinion.  On appeal, Globus challenged the judgment of infringement based on the district court’s claim construction. Globus challenged the courts denial of its JMOL based on anticipation.  Anticipation of an invention occurs if the later invention is an adaptation of an earlier patent.  The adaptation would be obvious to a skilled person who would need to exhibit some mechanical skill to develop the same adaptation.  Globus appeal was centered around the court’s construct of the terms at issue on appeal.  The appellate court reversed the denial of motion for JMOL with respect to claim 45 of the “929 patent,” and claim “42 of the 422 patent.”  The appellate court also affirmed the courts denial to claims 47 and 74 of the “929 patent.” And claim 48 of the “422 patent.”  The appeal was remanding to the district court to consider whether the damages award should be revisited in light of the decision.

The two patents in suits are entitled “Instruments for Stabilization of Bony Structures” and share a common specification.  The embodiment or principle pertained to the Sextant.  Globus argued that the claims were limited to the single embodiment disclosed in the common specification.  The court disagreed stating nothing in the specification indicates that the invention is limited to that embodiment.  In addition, the “Summary of the Invention” described various “aspects” of the invention in sufficiently general terms to embrace devices that embody the concept of the invention but are not identical to the particular embodiment described in detail.  Without getting into the minutiae of the suit, the trial court “expressly rejected the contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must be construed as being limited to that embodiment.  Since the specification does not clearly indicate that the patentee intended to deviate from the ordinary, broad meaning of the various terms at issue and limit the scope of the claims to disclose the embodiment, indeed, the specification clearly indicates that the claims are not so limited, therefore rejecting Globus’s restrictive reading of the claims as limited to the preferred embodiment depicted and described in the specification.

Globus challenged the trial court’s claim construction were tied to its theory that claims are limited to the preferred embodiment as described in the specification.  Globus argued that the court gave unduly broad constructions to the terms “instrument” and “inserter” as well as the phrase “an instrument associated with the connecting element.”  Globus had urged the trial court to construe the term “insertion instrument” to mean “a unitary device for implanting a rod or brace that includes a brace inserter, and which has a pivot axis relative to the anchors that is located outside the body.”  On appeal, Globus contends that the term “instrument” as used in the asserted claims, must include at least “two or more support arms (rods) that are pivotally connected to a brace inserter and each of which is connected to an anchor extension, or a brace inserter that is connected to two or more support arms which are pivotally secured to two or more anchor extensions (pedicle screws).”  The trial court rejected this complex formulation and instead construed the term “insertion instrument” to mean “an implement used for inserting something.” (Claims in “422 Patent)  Globus argued that it should be construed as a “unitary device for implanting a rod or a brace that includes a brace inserter and a brace, and which has a pivot axis relative to the anchors that is located outside the body.” Again the court rejected the detailed and narrow definition, but concluded instead that the phrase refers to “an implement operable to place the connecting element in a predetermined location.”  The court thus construed the phrase to mean “an implement for maneuvering the connecting element.   The Appellate Court agreed with Warsaw that the patents do not assign a specific narrow meaning to the challenged terms and that the trial court therefore properly construed those term in light of their ordinary meaning.  Therefore, the Appellate Court rejected Globus’s challenge to the trial court’s construction of particular terms used in the asserted claims upholding the portion of the trial court’s judgment that Globus’s accused system infringes those claims.

Globus argued in the alternative that if the claims are given the broad construction that Warsaw urged for them during the Markman proceedings, the district court should have granted its motion for JMOL of anticipation as to all asserted claims.  The two broadest claims were claim “45” of the “922 patent” and claim “42” of the “422 patent.”  Globus utilized Dr. Paul McAfee as their expert witness, and Warsaw utilized Dr. Scott Tromanhauser.  Globus’s position on claims “45” and “42”was that the claims as construed require only the instrument assist the surgeon in positioning the connecting element so that it connects the first and second pedicle screw.  Warsaw’s position was that the claims require that the instrument be able to place the connecting element (aka rod) without guidance from the surgeon.  Warsaw argued that the Sextant places the connecting rod in the proper orientation without the need for the surgeon to guide the rod between the two screws.  The critical question for purposes of validity inquiry is whether the claims require that the instrument, rather than the surgeon, perform the function of directing the connecting element along the path between the first and second screws.  Warsaw’s argument was that the instrument has an operation and that the claim explained the capability of the instrument not the capability of the surgeon.  Because of disclosure of all elements in claims “45” and “42” the Appellate Court reversed the district court’s denial of Globus’s JMOL for invalidity on the basis of anticipation.  The Appellate Court took a different view as to the remaining claims and affirmed the trial court’s decision to deny Globus’s motion for JMOL with respects to claims “47” and “74” of the “922 patent,” and claim “48” of the “422 patent.”  In sum the Appellate Court reversed the judgment as to claim “45” of the “922 patent” and claim “42” of the “422 patent.”  The Appellate Court affirmed the judgment as to claims “47” and “74” of the “922 patent,” and claim “48” of the “422” patent.  In closing , the Appellate Court remanded this case back to the district court to determine if the calculation of the damages must be reevaluated in light of the modification of the judgment.  The bottom line:

“You win some, You lose some, but you gotta suit up for all of them!”

Wednesday, February 2, 2011

Inquiring Minds Want To Know

Since TSB is the People's Forum, a friend in need is a friend indeed. Recently, TSB received an inquiry from an investigator whose firm goes after corporations that engage in fraudulent or illegal conduct.  Firms like Cohen, Milstein, Sellers and Toll pick and choose cases carefully.  An example of the type of litigation that they are involved in would be their suit against BP in connection with its safety and environmental record in connection with the Deepwater Horizon explosion.  So how does this tie into the spine industry? CMST represents the lead plaintiff, a public employees retirement fund in a class action lawsuit against AlphaTec.  This class of shareholders owned AlphaTec, (the Company) stock prior to the stock crashing last August. Obviously, AlphaTec had a difficult time integrating Scient'x.  But inquiring minds always want to know how difficult can it really be considering that there was a limited product portfolio, a thin management team, and an independent distribution model that could be easily terminated.  But that's not what this post is about.

John Sifton is attempting to speak with former AlpaTech, Scient'x, or Healthpoint employees who might have pertinent information regarding the Company's admittingly strange reversal of fortune in 2010.  Considering that AlphaTec had presented such an optimistic forecast during the first half of the year, heralding the Scient'x merger.  On March 29th, 2010 AlphaTec anticipated pro forma revenues in the range of $220-$225 million, and pro forma full year 2010 adjusted EBITA to be in the range of $32-35 million.  In the 2010 press release, AlphaTec expected the acquisition to be positive to the Company's EPS, and accretive to the Company's 2011 EPS. So questions must be asked, what precipitated this sudden turn around in August 2010 which resulted in lowering their earlier "happy happy" forecast, and what could have potentially been the impetus for the delay in integrating Scient'x? Obviously something smells fishy.  Was the company "fluffing" things up in anticipation of its April stock offering? Was the Scient'x acquisition and merger simply a ruse to mitigate expected losses at Scient'x? Is this truly a House of Cards?  The inquiring minds at CMST want to know. It seems that those that invested in this dog of a stock are a bit perturbed about their losses.

So if you are interested, have the time and love for Mortimer and John Boy give Mr. Sifton a call at (202) 408-4617 or drop him an e-mail at  You don't need to speak on the record, confidential documents or information are welcome.  TSB wants to know what inquiring minds have to offer?

Tuesday, February 1, 2011

Synthes To Recall N-Hance Rods?

It was reported today that Kurt Birchler has asked the Syntes (love that lisp) Spine Salesforce to send in all of the N-Hance Rods from the field.  This was probably a long time coming considering they were rumors on the Street that Synthes was experiencing technical difficulties with the rod.  Voluntary or Not, The Arbeitsgemeinschaft Osteosynthesfragen spent $75 million on this acquisition.  Would it be safe to assume that this was an investment that has gone belly up?  Considering that David (I'm a rocket scientist) Nicholls and Hansjoerg Emch were fired last year for exhibiting incompetence, could Birchler and Michelle be that far behind?  TSB wants to know what its readers think?