Good afternoon, and thank you for joining PROCEPT BioRobotics' first quarter 2026 earnings conference call. Presenting on today's call are Larry Wood, Chief Executive Officer, and Kevin Waters, Chief Financial Officer.

Before we begin, I'd like to remind listeners that statements made on this conference call that relate to future plans, events, or performance are forward-looking statements as defined under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. While these forward-looking statements are based on management's current expectations and beliefs, these statements are subject to several risks, uncertainties, assumptions, and other factors that could cause results to differ materially from the expectations expressed on this conference call.

These risks and uncertainties are disclosed in more detail in PROCEPT BioRobotics' filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, all of which are available online at www.sec.gov. Listeners are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which speak only as of today's date, April 29th, 2026.

Except as required by law, PROCEPT BioRobotics undertakes no obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements to reflect new information, circumstances, or unanticipated events that may arise. During the call, we will also reference certain financial measures that are not prepared in accordance with GAAP.

More information about how we use these non-GAAP financial measures, as well as reconciliations of these measures to their nearest GAAP equivalent, are included in our earnings release. With that, I'd like to turn the call over to Larry.

Good afternoon, and thank you for joining us. Over the past six months, we have taken decisive actions to reset the organization.

We have sharpened our focus on operational excellence, accountability, and commercial discipline. Our first quarter performance reflects the early impact of these efforts.

We are encouraged by our Q1 results and the momentum we are building, having reported total revenue of $83.1 million, representing an annual growth of 20%. Starting with procedures, we completed approximately 12,200 US procedures in the first quarter of 2026.

While our commercial realignment initiatives modestly affected Q1 procedure growth, performance was largely in line with expectations. The team is adapting well, and we expect the full benefit of these changes to materialize in the second half of 2026.

Regarding handpieces, we believe field inventory levels and customer purchasing behavior have normalized, with handpieces sold representing approximately 95% of procedures in the first quarter. On a weighted average basis, we continue to expect approximately a 1:1 ratio of handpieces to procedures for the full year.

Turning to US systems, we sold 49 HYDROS systems, which included two replacement systems. We remain confident in our full year system plan and are encouraged by the early positive customer response to the AquaBeam replacement program.

With regards to pricing, as we emphasized in our last earnings call, establishing price discipline remains fundamental to long-term value creation. In the first quarter of 2026, US HYDROS system average selling prices of approximately $485,000.

This represents an all-time high and a 14% increase compared to the fourth quarter of 2025, despite what is typically a seasonally challenging quarter for capital. Given our increased pricing discipline across the organization and strong first quarter pricing, we now expect full year 2026 system pricing to be modestly above our initial guidance range.

Additionally, US handpiece average selling prices were approximately $3,500, representing a 5% increase compared to the fourth quarter of 2025 and a 10% increase year-over-year. Now, provide an update on our commercial organization.

We previously described two key changes that we believe are strategically important for long-term performance. First, we realigned our commercial team into an integrated regional structure where our clinical and sales functions now report to a common regional leader.

The new structure creates a single point of accountability at the regional level to ensure clinical and commercial activities are coordinated around customer success and procedure growth. Second, we have continued to advance our dedicated launch team to drive more consistent launches, reduce variability in activation, and accelerate procedure volume ramp for customers.

We view launches as a key lever for improving downstream utilization and overall performance. The realignment of the commercial organization and implementation of the launch team was finalized in early Q1, and as expected, resulted in some short-term disruption in the first quarter.

We view this as a normal transition period as teams ramp, establish account relationships, and standardize new operating processes. Most important, we believe these changes, along with our marketing programs, better position us for sustained high growth.

We will continue to manage through the transition thoughtfully, and we expect the benefits to build as the organization settles into the new model. Now let's look at gross margins and how we are progressing towards profitability.

In the fourth quarter of 2025, we reported gross margins of 61% and indicated this level was temporary. We guided to full year 2026 gross margins of approximately 65%, reflecting expected improvement.

Driven by increased price discipline and better leverage of our cost structure, we delivered first quarter gross margins of 65%. With this strong start, we expect gross margins to increase modestly on a sequential basis throughout the year.

We will also continue to manage operating expenses as we work toward achieving positive adjusted EBITDA in the fourth quarter of 2026. Turning to regulatory and clinical updates, in March, at the 41st Annual European Association of Urology Congress in London, the EAU updated its clinical guidelines to give Aquablation therapy a strong recommendation as a surgical treatment for men with BPH and moderate-to-severe LUTS, reflecting the high quality of evidence and favorable patient outcomes.

The therapy is now recommended as an alternative to TURP, especially for patients seeking to preserve ejaculatory function. This upgrade for prostates 30 to 80 mL and the additional modes for treating prostates greater than 80 mL is supported by multiple clinical trials, including WATER and WATER II, all of which demonstrated durable improvements in urinary symptoms, preservation of ejaculatory and urinary function, and effectiveness across a wide range of prostate anatomies.

A strong recommendation from one of the most respected global guideline bodies reflects the strength of the clinical evidence supporting Aquablation therapy and reinforces its role as a modern surgical option for physicians seeking to deliver durable symptom relief while preserving quality of life outcomes that matter most to patients. At EAU, we also announced the first international launch of HYDROS in the UK.

This milestone marks the beginning of a broader global expansion. Specifically, in the first quarter, we sold seven new HYDROS systems in the United Kingdom at an average selling price of over $400,000.

Building on the recent approval and strong clinical momentum, including the rapid adoption at high-volume NHS hospitals, our UK capital pipeline continues to grow nicely. We have also received FDA clearance on our second generation FirstAssist AI software, an advancement in personalized image-guided planning for Aquablation therapy.

This milestone further strengthens the capability of the HYDROS robotic system and enables more precise identification of prostate anatomy and more complete treatment planning to help surgeons plan with greater confidence and consistency. We remain deeply committed to advancing the standard of care in urology through our continued innovation for the millions of men affected by BPH.

Lastly, we are approaching the completion of patient enrollment in the WATER IV study, and based on current trends, expect to be fully enrolled by the end of May. We have been very pleased with the pace of enrollment, which is on track to be completed in less than 18 months.

For a clinical trial of WATER IV's size and complexity, the speed of enrollment highlights strong surgical interest and a patient willingness to participate, factors we believe will ultimately translate into broader market adoption post-approval. Based on current timelines, we expect to present the WATER IV primary endpoint at AUA in the spring of 2027.

With that, I will turn the call over to Kevin.

Thanks, Larry. Total revenue for the first quarter of 2026 was $83.1 million, representing 20% year-over-year growth.

US revenue for the quarter was $72 million, reflecting 19% growth compared to the prior year period. Turning to US procedures, we completed approximately 12,200 US procedures in the first quarter of 2026, representing approximately 30% year-over-year growth.

The percentage of handpieces sold to procedure volume was approximately 95%, with handpiece average selling price of approximately $3,500. As a result, total US handpiece and other consumable revenue was $43 million in the first quarter of 2026, representing 13% growth compared to the first quarter of 2025.

Turning to US systems, total US system revenue was $23.4 million in the first quarter, representing 25% year-over-year growth. We sold 49 HYDROS systems at an average selling price of approximately $485,000 for new US systems.

Additionally, the 49 systems include two replacement systems, representing the early stages of what we expect to become a growing replacement cycle. We exited the first quarter of 2026 with a US installed base of 765 systems.

International revenue in the first quarter of 2026 was $11.1 million, representing year-over-year growth of 25%. Moving down the income statement, gross margin for the first quarter of 2026 was 65%, compared to 64% in the first quarter of 2025 and 61% in the fourth quarter of 2025.

The improvement was driven by increased pricing, cost discipline, and favorable product mix. Total operating expenses for the first quarter of 2026 were $86.6 million, compared to $71.6 million in the prior year period.

The increase reflects continued investment to support commercial expansion, ongoing innovation across our BPH platform technology, and increased funding for our WATER IV prostate cancer trial, positioning us to drive long-term growth and expand our clinical and technology leadership. Net loss for the first quarter of 2026 was $31.6 million, compared to a net loss of $24.7 million in the first quarter of 2025.

Adjusted EBITDA was a loss of $18.1 million in the first quarter of 2026, compared to a loss of $15.8 million in the prior year period. Cash, cash equivalents, and restricted cash totaled $249 million as of March 31st, 2026, providing a strong balance sheet to support our strategic priorities.

We expect cash usage to improve throughout the year, driven by greater operating leverage and improvements in working capital. Moving to our 2026 financial guidance, we continue to expect full year 2026 total revenue to be in the range of approximately $390 to $410 million, representing growth of approximately 27% to 33% compared to 2025.

This guidance range continues to assume international revenue to be in the range of $50 to $51 million. Additionally, we continue to expect 2026 total US procedures to be in the range of 60,000 to 64,000, representing growth of approximately 39% to 48%.

With respect to new US system pricing, we now expect pricing to range between $450,000 and $460,000 for the remainder of the year, depending on customer mix between individual accounts and large IDNs. While first quarter US system revenue and pricing exceeded expectations and we remain encouraged by both pricing and sales momentum, our focus is on ensuring this performance is sustainable.

Based on current trends, we have strong confidence in our full year total revenue guidance. We will provide further detail on these metrics as the year progresses.

Turning to gross margins, we continue to expect full year 2026 gross margins to be approximately 65%. This includes $5 to $6 million of tariff expense compared to $1.3 million in fiscal 2025.

Our gross margin guidance does not reflect any potential benefit from previously paid tariff refunds, which could provide upside to 2026 gross margins. We continue to expect full year 2026 adjusted EBITDA loss to be in the range of $30 to $17 million.

This guidance reflects positive EBITDA in the fourth quarter of 2026 at both the low and high ends of the revenue range. In the second quarter of 2026, we expect total revenue to be in the range of $91 to $95 million, representing growth of 15% to 20%.

I would now like to pass it back to Larry for closing comments.

Thanks, Kevin. In closing, while we have undergone significant change over the past six months, we believe these steps are essential to driving sustainable, high growth and to establishing a clear path to profitability.

In summary, while we are mostly complete with our US commercial realignment initiatives and expect more consistent commercial execution over the course of the second quarter, as reflected in our total revenue guidance. We have established pricing discipline across the organization, which we believe is critical to our long-term success.

The US capital pipeline continues to build, increasing our confidence in the sustainability of higher average selling pricing and the conversion of this pipeline into sales. Lastly, WATER IV enrollment is ahead of schedule, and we expect to complete enrollment in May.

In closing, I want to thank our employees, customers, and shareholders for all their support to help us along our journey to becoming the standard of care for BPH. At this point, we will be happy to take questions.

Operator? Thank you.

To ask a question, please press *11 on your telephone and wait for your name to be announced. To withdraw your question, please press *11 again.

Please stand by while we compile the Q&A roster.

Good afternoon. Thanks for taking the questions.

The first one is just a broader question kind of on the puts and takes that we saw here in Q1. The strength on the capital side, I'd love just to hear about where that originated, plus the ASP benefit that you're getting.

Then on the handpiece side, I don't know, Larry, if there's a way to kind of frame up some of the disruption that you saw this quarter, and then kind of how long it should linger and when we should be past that, and then I do have a follow-up.

Yeah. Thanks, Matt.

I think the capital quarter was was pretty broad-based. We didn't really have a lot of large IDN orders or or anything like that.

It was pretty broad-based. I think that also contributed to the ASP upside.

We did certainly implement pricing discipline. Much like what we did with handpieces, we implemented that on capital as well, and and so that's, just an important part of our journey toward profitability.

On the on the handpieces, we the the realignment of the sales force has been complete, and I think we're just at a very just natural transition phase where we're reestablishing account relationships and backfilling some of the key positions for people that have moved over to the launch teams. We expect momentum on procedures to build throughout the quarter.

Sorry, throughout the year, and, we we remain, I believe, on track, related to our guidance, and and, those are certainly our goals. We're we're not where we want to be yet, but I think we've made the changes we need to make and we're building, and I think the team's going to continue to grow into these roles, and, I'm I'm, excited about what the future looks like.

Okay. Appreciate that.

That's very helpful. Then the second question is on the guidance side.

Just if I'm looking at the roughly, I think it was $93 million midpoint of the range for Q2, plus, again, the ASP benefit that you're going to get on the system side, just talk about the confidence in especially the back half. It seems like it's a little bit more loaded than normal to get to the midpoint of that range, and just the confidence there getting even to the midpoint or even higher, just again, given the ASP benefit that you're talking about on the system side.

Thanks.

Matt, I'll take that. Regarding Q2 and in our prepared remarks, we did say that we are guiding to new systems in the $450,000 to $460,000 range, even with the strength that we saw in the first quarter.

I would definitely suggest our confidence in executing within our guidance range this year has increased with our Q1 performance. We did just feel it's prudent to maintain current expectations as we continue to emerge from the recent commercial realignment.

Look, we feel good about the full year across all metrics, and as I said in my prepared remarks, it'll probably be the end of Q2 where we start to formally update some metrics around pricing and volume given what we've seen in the first six months here.

Got it. Thank you.

Great. Good afternoon.

Procedures were flat quarter-over-quarter. Is there any way to quantify how much of this is driven by disruption from the commercial org changes and the inventory destocking?

I guess have you seen any underlying softening in demand or referral funnels?

No, I think what we saw in Q1 was just sort of the normal seasonality that we see when we start the year, and that's not uncommon for us. I think that that was all pretty normal.

It's hard to quantify the sales force part of it in terms of people growing into their new roles and just sort of the normal seasonality we see in Q1. We're going to continue to drive procedures throughout the course of the year.

We had strong system placements, and the combination of strong system placements along with our launch teams, we think that's going to be a contributor of procedures as we get deeper into the year and we have more launch team systems in the field, and we think that's going to help us.

Great. Thanks.

For my follow-up, handpiece sales were below your target of 1:1 to procedures. You mentioned the inventory rightsizing is completed, but can you help us understand how much residual destocking impact there was in Q1, and could handpieces fall below procedures in upcoming quarters?

Yeah. No, we tried to guide that for the full year we're going to be 1:1 on handpieces, and we still remain very confident that that's going to be the case.

I think the bottom line is, if we're 95%, I'm not going to really apologize for it, and if we're 105%, we're not going to brag about it. I think handpiece sales are always going to fluctuate a little bit based on the number of systems we launch and all these other sorts of things.

I think that it's normalized. The number that we're focused on are procedures because eventually procedures and handpiece sales have to equalize out over time.

It's not going to be about how much inventory people carry. It's going to be how many procedures we drive.

We feel like that is largely normalized now, but we remain confident in the 1:1 full year ratio that we provided to our investor conference.

Hey, everyone. Thanks very much for taking my questions.

Maybe just one quick one. You mentioned the $450,000 to $460,000, was that the full year average, or was that for the remainder of the year?

I would classify that as for the remainder of the year. That puts the full year average more towards the upper end, probably around $460,000 when you average that out, Mike.

Just to add to that, part of our thinking on this is we didn't have a lot of big IDN orders in Q1, and when we get larger IDN orders, that can sometimes have a little bit more effect on price. I think even broader than that, we don't want to get out over our skis on ASP commitments, because there's certain places where we want to maintain some flexibility.

We are driving price discipline across the organization, and we're going to continue to do that.

Understood. Maybe just as a quick follow-up, but, Kevin, totally appreciate your comments on prudence and maybe some conservatism for now given it's early in the year, but you're reiterating your US systems revenue guidance in the backdrop of the higher ASPs.

Is there anything fundamental from a number of units sold perspective that is maybe changing, or is this really just as usual?

Look, I don't think it's changing, but I definitely believe the Q1 performance gives us greater conviction and confidence around achieving our full year guide. That should be implied with our performance, but at the same time, we're just coming off a Q4 shortfall.

We're coming off a commercial realignment, and we just want to make sure that we maintain current expectations and not get out over our skis as Larry mentioned. Our confidence in executing the full year on systems, particularly with the Q1 performance, is higher today than it was when we gave guidance in February.

Understood. Congrats again.

Hi, thanks for taking the questions. Maybe just to start, trying to get a sense of the new initiatives or kind of the way you're approaching the market in the selling organization that you outlined.

Can you highlight where you're seeing or where we should expect to see the proof points or the benefits show up fastest? I think there were three main ones that you had.

Where are you seeing the improvements show up most meaningfully and soonest? I get that you're pointing more to the back half, but I'm just curious where it's most evident that progress is going the way you want it to be going in the first half?

Thanks.

I think we have a lot of confidence in our launch teams. I think we've moved some of our more senior people over there with a lot of experience, and I think the key thing there is the more systems we put in the field that we do under the launch team model, which is going to build throughout the year, that we'll continue to see benefit of that.

I think that's one that we have great confidence in. The patient awareness activities, we're running multiple pilots on that, and when those pilots read out, it'll help us really prioritize what things are most effective and what things we should be driving.

I think that's just a prudent way to approach some of these new marketing programs. I think it's also really important people understand that there's always just going to be a lag between driving patient awareness and a patient getting a procedure.

It's not that a patient gets new information, they get an email, they see something on social media, maybe they hear a radio ad, and they show up at a doctor and they get treated the next day. They have to come in, they have to schedule their appointment, they have to get a workup.

I think most systems in the country probably schedule people a month out or so. There's always going to be a natural lag between some of these initiatives and actually seeing the patients get treated.

We're encouraged by all of the things. I think we've spent a lot of time with the sales team, and I think people have good conviction about the changes we've made and the new roles that we have for people.

It's just takes time for people to reestablish account relationships and to get some of the new people trained to backfill some of the launch teams. I think these are all very natural things.

They're not things that we think are going to be a struggle, but that's why we've always modeled, and we tried to be really clear about this at the investor conference, these things are going to contribute more in the back half of the year than they are in the early part of the year.

Got it. That's really helpful.

Then just this is now the first quarter, the first few months that you've been able to really see how physicians would react to kind of the physician fee payment changes that happened to all resective procedures going down, including yours. I guess, what are you hearing and seeing out there?

Do you feel better or worse, unchanged versus kind of the way you were talking to us before? We obviously had these changes in place.

Thanks.

I think we had pretty much factored those things in in February when we spoke before. I don't think anything's remarkably changed from what we talked about in February.

I think the economics for all these procedures are what they are. It is really about driving the clinical benefit and making sure patients understand how differentiated our procedure is versus competitive procedures.

I think when physicians understand that as well and patients understand it, I think that's what drives therapy adoption and taking share from competitive procedures. I don't think anything's meaningfully changed on that.

Thank you.

Hi. Good afternoon.

Thanks for taking the questions. Nice to see the solid start to the year.

Wanted to start off and just follow up on reimbursement question and just is there any way you could help us frame up the potential for Aquablation procedures to kind of move up in the APC level as we go through these proposed rules and then final rules over the next couple months?

Yeah. We haven't built that into our modeling.

I think one of the important things to remember, Josh, is that even when these codes change, they always collect actual cost. Medicare doesn't pay for value, they pay for resource consumption.

I think if you make economics the primary part of the story here, you're always going to be sort of chasing those ghosts. What we're focused on is at the current levels that reimbursement exists, how is this an economically solid procedure for hospitals, and then how do we drive patients in?

I think the other part about it is how do we help hospitals be efficient with the procedure? How do we help them be efficient with procedure time?

How do we help them be efficient with discharge, be efficient in avoiding complications? When we do that, I think the economics for this procedure work well.

We haven't factored anything into our guidance about changing APC levels. If that happened, it would be certainly an upside to reimbursement.

Thanks for that. Then just to follow up, sorry if I missed this in the earlier remarks, but sounds like there is more positive reception than anticipated for replacement systems, HYDROS replacements.

Any new outlook just in terms of how replacements kind of factor through the rest of 2026? Maybe just remind us why you expect replacements to pick up next year?

Thanks a lot.

Thanks, Josh. I think just in simplest terms, given a typical capital cycle, and we just really launched our replacement program kind of at the beginning of the year, the fact that we got two replacements already in, I think we were very encouraged by.

I think we have a lot of customers now that they realize they can get a trade-in value for their legacy system, which helps them with a replacement strategy. I think we just probably feel confident that replacements are going to be something that we're going to really hone the program in this year, and I think it's going to be a much bigger part of our story in 2027.

We're encouraged with our early start, and we just got to continue to drive execution on that.

Thanks. Besides all the moving pieces you guys had going on, there was also quite a bit of severe weather during the quarter.

These cases are rescheduleable if the need arises. Did you see procedures getting pushed from 1Q into 2Q because of that, or was all that disruption sort of contained within February and March?

Thanks. Chris, certainly there was some severe weather in the year, and there's some case cancellations and whatnot.

How many of those cases came back on the schedule and how many of those patients got something else, I think it'd be really difficult for us to say. I think most of that's probably out of the system at this point because most of that happened early in the quarter.

I don't think it materially impacted our quarter, and I'm sort of just not really inclined to attribute anything to weather-related issues. Our numbers are our numbers.

They have to stand alone. If there's severe weather and cases get canceled, it's our team's job to make sure that they get rescheduled and they get done.

We just don't really make any allowances for that here and just keep people focused on the execution that we control.

Fair enough. I'd love to hear a little bit more about the UK opportunity and what that looks like.

International, small part of the business today, that's been a consistent outperformer. Can you talk a little bit about sort of what you think the denominator is for that particular market, and are there other areas that you're excited about in terms of next steps internationally?

Yeah. When I stepped into the role, I really felt there's opportunities in international.

International isn't a very homogeneous place. There's a lot of variation, obviously.

Some countries have really solid reimbursement, and they're the capital opportunities that are solid. We've focused on those places, and the UK is certainly our biggest place in Europe.

We were excited to launch HYDROS. I think we had a great showing at EAU, and combined with the latest guidelines, I think it was a overall very positive meeting for us.

We continue to evaluate what other markets in Europe that we should be looking at as opportunities. It's not going to be everywhere, but I think over time, Europe and international is going to become a bigger and bigger part of our story.

That's going to just take time to develop.

Thanks.

Hey, thanks for taking the question. Wanted to ask on Q1 procedures were a little light of the Street and grew 31%, and you're still expecting a ramp in procedures to 50% growth in the second half.

Can you remind us what's driving that acceleration and your confidence in that?

Yeah. Thanks for the question.

I think we always expected the first half of the year to be slower than the second half of the year, and we always expect to see a little bit of seasonality in Q1, and we certainly did see that, but it was pretty much at expected levels. We implemented all of our organization changes in the sales force early in the year, and so people are growing into those roles, and they're reestablishing that account management.

The launch teams are starting to launch systems under the launch team model. They started in the quarter, but it takes time for those to build and for those to contribute.

I think it is the combination of people maturing in the roles, reestablishing these account relationships. I think in the back half of the year we start seeing more benefit from some of our patient activation activities, and I think we get the full benefit of all of our newly launched systems this year, and those contributing at a higher level than what we've seen historically.

The more systems you place under that model and the better they do, the more that builds for the back half of the year. That's what's driving that.

Got it. Thank you.

Then on the Q2 guidance, the midpoint of $93 million is a little below the Street at $95 million. Maybe could you help us understand that?

I'm just curious what's changed on your view of Q2, maybe it's some of what you had just talked about, but is there more lingering disruption from the commercial organization changes than you thought, or anything else?

No, this is Kevin. Nothing's really changed in our thinking.

If anything, as I said earlier, I think we feel more positive in our initial guide today than we did when we provided that a few months ago. We have never provided Q2 guidance as part of investor days, this is really the first time, and really just sticking with the philosophy right now that we think it's prudent to keep expectations reasonable and give us a chance to outperform as opposed to getting out ahead of ourselves.

There's nothing unique or different in Q2, and we continue to feel good about the trajectory on both systems, procedures, and our international business.

Larry, Kevin, congrats on a good start to the year. Larry, a lot of commentary on handpieces and procedures.

Maybe if I could ask one question slightly differently. Of the 47 HYDROS systems, right, you've given your site numbers in the US.

Our rough math, Larry, is suggesting it's around the 17-ish number of procedures per site per quarter, roughly in that ballpark. Maybe if you could talk to what are you seeing in utilization in your sites?

Where do you think your share capture is within those sites? Is this the bogey that we should be thinking about as we map out the year, and new store, same-store sales?

Yeah. Thanks for the question.

We talked about this a little bit at the investor conference. Our sites are highly variable, and so trying to create averages and trying to create average utilization, especially when we have a mix of AquaBeam and a mix of HYDROS, and going forward we're going to have a mix of kind of our launch team launch systems and some of our legacy systems.

I just think it's hard to be able to create an average, and I appreciate why everybody wants to do that because it's easy to just plug into a formula. I think what people should be focused on is just our pure procedure growth.

We put our procedure numbers that we expect to do this year, we put our ASP numbers, we put our system numbers on the board, and that's what we just have to go drive to. The key for us is showing growth quarter-over-quarter on our procedure growth, and that's what we're going to be driving to.

I think I'm certainly not focusing the team on go to our lowest-utilization places and try to bring it to the mean. We map out literally every system in the country and say where are the biggest opportunities, where are their under-usage, where are their share takes, where are their motivated people.

That's just our focus. I would just continue to focus on procedure growth quarter-over-quarter.

Fair enough. Larry, one follow-up question on WATER IV.

You'll have a readout in spring '27. Let's assume it's positive, right?

Logic tells you there would be a collateral pull-through both on the BPH side and on the prostate cancer side, right? Larry, should we think about is it going to be a symmetric payoff, or do you envision there could be some level of asymmetricity?

In other words, let's say superiority, there is some kink somewhere. Does it impact BPH also?

How are you all thinking about that? Thank you for taking my questions.

That question may be above my education level. I'll say I don't know the WATER IV data, nobody knows the WATER IV data at this point, and I don't want to speculate about data.

I think just broadly speaking, the more positive that data is, the more disruptive it has the potential for being for patients with prostate cancer. Obviously, anybody that already has a system and that's already trained would be able to adapt quickly to treating those patients, and we would certainly do everything we could to facilitate that.

I think it's just going to matter most of the strength of the data and how doctors interpret that as it relates to where this fits in in treating patients with prostate cancer. All of those things being said, we think it's a perfect adjacency for us.

It's rare that you can get this kind of leverage out of the same exact system, the same exact handpiece, and largely the same users, and that gives us leverage all of our sales force as well. We're just focused on running a great trial and then presenting that data when it comes out at AUA next year.

We're all cautiously optimistic it's going to be positive, but we'll have a lot more view once the data's public and we can talk about it and be more granular.

Thank you.

Great. Thanks for taking the questions here.

I wanted to ask on procedure utilization. I think at the Analyst Day, you had called out different levels of procedure contribution from that class of systems sold pre-'25, those sold in '25, and those expected to be sold in 2026.

Just curious on the progress you've seen so far in Q1, maybe how that level of contribution from the different groups have stacked up in each relative to your initial expectations, and then what your expectations are through the rest of the year from that segmentation perspective to get to the lower end, the midpoint, or upper end of the procedure guide for the year.

I'll just say that we're still early in the launch model, and the ability of those systems to contribute significantly to our overall total number is just very limited at this point. I will say we remain extremely confident in the launch team model, and I think when we saw the readout from our pilot that we shared at the investor conference, and I think we for all the same reasons, we continue to believe that that's going to be a very important part of our story.

It really just comes down to making sure as many systems we sell as possible start off great because our view is when they start off great, they tend to stay great, and they tend to get established and they become a huge part of how BPH gets treated in those accounts. We don't want to get too far ahead of ourselves, and I think it's too early to declare victory on any of our programs yet.

We just remain laser focused on all of them and making sure we're tracking the metrics, we're tracking the progress that we're making, and we're driving our procedure numbers and doing that to the very best of our ability. That's our focus now.

We're just sort of head down and trying to drive the organizational excellence that we need to get where we need to go.

Thanks. Then maybe on this system ASP in in the US that you delivered in in the quarter and then the subsequent guide through the remainder of of the year.

You called out this pricing discipline maybe as as being a a factor for the higher ASPs you saw in the first quarter. Obviously also shows that there clearly is a an appetite maybe at least from the center's perspective of of paying a higher price for some of these systems.

Maybe can you help reconcile, why why the guide for the second half of the year, or sorry, for the remainder of the year would would assume an ASP, below what you delivered in the first quarter, and is there, potential for for what you saw in Q1 to maybe be a a more realistic number as you you go through the year from a system ASP perspective? Thank you.

Yeah. I think as Kevin said earlier, a little bit of it comes down to customer mix.

We talked about it a little bit in our Q4 number. We had probably more IDN sales in Q4, and so that took our ASP down a little bit from what we had seen earlier in the year last year, and we had less IDNs in Q1.

We are going to continue to drive price discipline, and and we're going to continue to try to get the highest ASP that we can, and we think our value proposition is very strong. We don't want to react to one quarter and get out over our skis for what the whole year ASP is going to be.

What we're just trying to do is be measured about that, and, that's why Kevin, covered that, we're now think that you can model it at $450,000 to $460,000 for the remainder of the year, and we think that that's, that's a good modeling number. We'll certainly update that quarter, or next quarter, where we land, and depending on how that quarter lands, I think it'll give us a lot more confidence in how durable the pricing ASP is going to be.

I'm very pleased overall with the operational discipline that we're showing. We guided, if you go back to look at handpieces, we guided handpieces this year that you should model in $3,500.

We were able to achieve that in Q1. I think that bodes well for us for the rest of the year.

We're going to continue to drive that same sort of transition on systems, but, as as Kevin and I both said, we just don't want to get out ahead of ourselves. Thank you.

Hey, guys. Appreciate fit me in here.

I'll keep it to one. Could you characterize, I guess, what percentage of the sales funnel today is being driven more by bottom-up surgeon champion versus top-down admin of these larger systems?

Are you seeing the new launch team attract more surgeon champions to deals that are sourced top down today versus, I guess, where you guys were six months ago?

I'll start there. Maybe I'll ask Kevin to add a little bit of color because he's very deep on our capital cycle and for some of those things.

One of the things that is core to what we're doing on the capital side, though, is we don't want to sell a system to anybody, frankly, if there's not a surgeon champion who's established. We want people to always be standing on the dock waiting for the system.

We want to have our launch team ready to go. We want to have patients pre-screened, and we want to drive that system very, very quickly.

I think historically, we just were much looser on that process. If somebody wanted to buy a robot and we hadn't identified a champion yet and it showed up on the dock, then the team would start working on that process.

Now, we just have a much more integrated approach on that of making sure when we sell a system, that there's a home for it and there's a champion who's ready to go, and then we bring the launch team in and we try to drive case excellence from the very first cases we do with that system and try to establish it as a core therapy within their urology program. I just think we're just so much tighter about that now organizationally, and we're still building that muscle, but that's going to be what I think really differentiates the organizational performance as we move through time.

I'll ask if Kevin wants to add anything on customer mix or some of these other things.

I'll just add a follow-up point that and I think it is a common misconception where we have said, and we are seeing, great relationships now with the top-down with large IDNs, but at the same time, that does not mean we don't have the bottoms-up surgeon support within that IDN network. Historically, we only had the surgeon support, whereas now we're definitely being viewed as a viable technology across a much broader hospital network, and that is what we're seeing.

To remind you, our Q1 results did not have any of those large IDN sales, so that's just another factor as well that gives us confidence in the full year systems guidance.

I guess just to finish the thought, it's really both. If you have top-level administrative support and you don't have a surgeon champion, you can get the capital sale, but you're not going to get the pull-through on procedures that you want.

If you have a surgeon champion, but you don't have the administration that's supporting bringing a new therapy in, then you're going to struggle to get the capital sale and that cycle's going to go on longer. I think what we're just really trying to do is just be super integrated about that and drive to where we have both pieces of those puzzle because when those two things come together really strongly, I think that's where we really drive utilization to where we want it to be.

Got it. That's helpful.

I'll leave it there. Thanks, guys.

Hey, guys, it's Max on for Brandon. I'll just do one quick one as well.

First quarter gross margin was 65%, you guys reiterated the full year expectation of about 65%. Can you just walk us through some of the puts and takes, given some of the revenue mix and ASP dynamics on the year, and how that relates to gross margin, and how we should be thinking about cadence through the rest of the year?

Thanks.

I can walk you through the year. Good question.

You pointed out in Q1 we did deliver 65% gross margin. That was driven sequentially by higher handpiece and system pricing and just our overall ability to leverage our overhead expenses.

As we move throughout the year, Q2 and Q3, you should think a very modest expansion in the next two quarters, somewhere in the 10 to 20 basis point range over the next two quarters. When you get to the fourth quarter, you have a multitude of factors.

You have favorable revenue mix towards higher-margin handpieces, we have improved overhead absorption, and then just in general we'll have total revenues, and we should be exiting the year in the 66%-plus range, but that will still translate to a full year margin at 65%. Definitely coming off of Q1, landing at our full year guide in Q1 at 65% gives us a greater degree of comfort with our full year margin guidance.

Got it. Thanks, guys.