Welcome to BONESUPPORT Year-End Report 2025 presentation. For the first part of the conference call, the participants will be in listen-only mode. During the questions and answer session, participants are able to ask questions by dialing pound key five on their telephone keypad. I will hand the conference over to CEO, Torbjörn Sköld; and CFO, Håkan Johansson. Please go ahead. Thank you, operator, and welcome everyone to BONESUPPORT's Q4 and full year 2025 results call. My name is Torbjörn Sköld. I'm the CEO of BONESUPPORT, and with me here today is our CFO, Håkan Johansson, and together we will use the next 25 minutes to guide you through the Q4 presentation and then open the line for questions. Before we start the presentation, I would like to draw your attention to the disclaimers covering any forward-looking statements that we will make today. Let's look at the financial and operational highlights from the quarter. Q4 was another strong quarter with solid execution across the business. Net sales came in at SEK 313 million, corresponding to a growth of 22% versus Q4 2024. Sales growth at constant exchange rates was 36%, showing that there was a continued strong currency impact on our figures for the quarter. Our adjusted operating results, excluding incentive program effects, was SEK 81 million, corresponding to an adjusted operating margin of 26%. Reported operating results was SEK 82 million, and we saw solid cash generation, with operating cash flows reaching SEK 54 million. We continued to see strong traction for CERAMENT G in the U.S., where both new accounts and increased use among current users contributed to the strong progress. CERAMENT G sales in the U.S. reached SEK 207 million for the quarter, compared to SEK 154 million in the same period the year before. In Europe and the rest of the world, we saw strong momentum, which more than offset the negative effects of the German market reforms. During the quarter, we also advanced our regulatory pipeline. As communicated in early December, the FDA submission for CERAMENT V has now been transferred from the 510(k) pathway to the De Novo process. This change reflects the FDA's assessment that CERAMENT V may constitute an entirely new product category, like CERAMENT G in 2022, and positions us for a stronger long-term market entry. In addition, we initiated the early stage launch of CERAMENT BVF for spine in the U.S., an important step as we continue expanding our portfolio of indications and applications. I will come back to that later in my presentation. Let's move to the sales development. The chart shows total last 12 months reported sales in Swedish krona by quarter since 2019, in stacked bars per region and product category. As you can see, the launch momentum for CERAMENT G in the U.S. is exceptionally strong. Given that we keep bringing new, strong clinical studies and opening up new markets, market segments and new indications, a product like CERAMENT G will remain in launch phase for many years to come. However, throughout 2025, we have seen strong influence from the U.S. dollar to Swedish krona depreciation. Last 12 months, growth in Q4 of 31% in the graph corresponds to an even stronger 40% at constant exchange rates. Most of this quarter-over-quarter slowdown in last 12 months sales is due to a strong currency impact. U.S. CERAMENT BVF last 12 months was flat year-over-year in constant currency. In total, antibiotic-eluting CERAMENT grew with 54% last 12 months in the quarter in constant currency. Next slide, please. In the U.S., sales amounted to 259 million SEK, representing a growth of 40% at constant exchange rate. There was some general variability during the quarter due to the number of working days. At the same time, we continued to experience strong growth of CERAMENT G, driven by both increased access through new accounts and new surgeons, as well as wider adoption among existing accounts and surgeons. In trauma, we see expanding access and adoption in Level I Trauma Centers, which is an important validation of CERAMENT G for treating complex infections and bone voids in the most demanding clinical environments. There are roughly 250 Level I Trauma Centers in the U.S. These are the very large and most important centers for advanced trauma treatments. At the end of 2024, we had sold CERAMENT to 15 of these. At the end of 2025, we had sold to more than 140 Level I Trauma Centers. That said, actual use is evolving gradually as trauma surgeons carefully assess and evaluate new products before they become part of regular use. Remember that full healing and evaluation of a trauma patient can take more than six months. As part of our mission to modernize an outdated standard of care in the U.S., we have successfully opened one market segment after another. We started in foot and ankle, followed by trauma, and now moving into revision arthroplasty. Interest continues to grow for CERAMENT G in revision arthroplasty and periprosthetic joint infections, two areas where the clinical needs remain substantial and where the evidence supporting our antibiotic-eluting technology has resonated strongly with surgeons. We've built a solid foundation for our spine strategy over the past quarters by establishing distributor coverage and preparing for the market. In Q4, we initiated the early-stage launch of CERAMENT BVF in spinal procedures, with distributors now actively engaging spine surgeons across both existing and new partnerships. As this is a new clinical segments for us, more clinical data is needed to support broader market penetration longer term. Importantly, the performance of CERAMENT BVF in spine will help confirm the value proposition for the CERAMENT platform, which will pave the way for the future CERAMENT G launch. We have made strong progress in evaluating and preparing the regulatory pathway, and we'll share more on the path forward at our Capital Markets Day this spring. Now, let's turn to Europe. Next slide, please. Sales in Europe and rest of the world came in at SEK 54 million, representing 18% growth at constant exchange rates. Sales in Europe continued to be influenced by the same dynamics as observed in Q3, meaning that hospital reforms and surgical protocol programs in Germany were still impacting our sales. Direct markets, excluding Germany, delivered at normal growth rates. By the way, when we say normal growth rates, we mean normal for CERAMENT. The growth rates that we see outside Germany are 4x-5x higher than growth rates for the market in general. Hybrid markets in Southern Europe, Australia, and Canada are performing strongly. We see positive traction from the investments made during the first half of 2025, reflected in improved sales performance. I'll leave a deep dive into the numbers to Håkan. Thank you, Torbjörn. Net sales improved from SEK 257 million- SEK 312.5 million, equaling a growth of 22% reported sales growth, or 36% in constant exchange rates. Torbjörn has already spoken about the solid performance in especially the U.S. and the major drivers behind the sales growth. As the weak U.S. dollar somewhat hides a continued strong trajectory in the U.S., I would like to share the U.S. sales performance in U.S. dollars. CERAMENT G is the growth driver in the U.S., this slide shows the quarterly CERAMENT G sales in the U.S. in U.S. dollars, with continued solid performance quarter to quarter. The number of working days in each period impact sales, especially in Q4, which is impacted by both Thanksgiving and the holiday season over Christmas and New Year's. Taking this into consideration, a strong net sale per working day is noted during the quarter when looking at the orange line in the presentation. The contribution from the U.S. segment improved by $30 million and amounted to $120.2 million. The improved contribution relates to increased sales after effect from increased costs. Selling and marketing expenses during the quarter amounted to SEK 128 million, compared with SEK 108.8 million previous year, of which sales commissions to distributors and fees amounted to SEK 85 million, compared with SEK 69.6 million the same quarter last year. From the graph at the bottom of the screen, showing net sales as bars and gross margin as the orange marker, it can be noted that the gross margin remains stable and strong at around 95%, with a minor decline in the period following a gradual impact from U.S. tariffs. In Europe and rest of world, a contribution of SEK 11.9 million was reported, to be compared with SEK 12.8 million previous year. Selling and marketing expenses increased by SEK 4.9 million, including SEK 3.6 million related to the previously communicated commercial investments in the so-called Euro Booster Program. From the lower graph and orange marker, a minor drop in gross margin can be noted, mainly impacted by the market mix. Selling expenses, excluding sales commission and fees, increased by SEK 8.6 million, mainly in staffing expenses, of which SEK 3.6 million relates to the so-called Euro Booster. The increase from Q3 this year relates to seasonality, as Q4 is usually intense in terms of congresses and marketing activities. R&D remained focused on the execution of strategic initiatives, such as the application status in spine procedures and the market authorization submission for CERAMENT V in the U.S. The expense for the quarter includes submission fees and other additional expenses related to the change in regulatory pathway for CERAMENT V in the U.S. Finally, administrative expenses, excluding the effects from long-term incentive programs, reports a small increase for the period, of which SEK 2.8 million relates to the CEO succession. The reported operating result amounted to SEK 81.8 million, despite unfavorable currency effects totaling SEK 2.9 million. I will come back to this in a later slide. The newly introduced tariffs in the United States had a gradual impact on costs in the quarter. The full effect of the current 50% tariff will equal a 0.8% impact on U.S. gross margins, which will come gradually with full effect late 2026. The difference between adjusted and reported operating result are costs regarding our long-term incentive programs, amounting to a negative expense of SEK 0.5 million in the quarter, compared with an expense of SEK 13.7 million previous year, as you can see from the previous slide. The reduced costs are due to the drop in share price. Operating cash flow remains solid, with an increase in accounts receivables at the end of the year, mainly as customer payments seem to have been deferred to after the holidays. During the period, the Swedish krona has continued to strengthen against the U.S. dollar. Other operating income and expenses therefore contain foreign exchange gains and losses from the translation of the group's receivables and liabilities in foreign currency, amounting to a negative SEK 2.9 million. The graph on this slide shows, with gray bars, how the relationship between the U.S. dollar closing rate and the Swedish krona has varied over time. This is read out on the right Y-axis. The blue dotted line, read out on the left Y-axis, shows adjusted operating result. The adjusted operating result, excluding translation exchange effects, is the orange line and gives a more comparable view of the underlying trend in operating results. In the table below the graph, you can see the FX-adjusted operating margin of close to 27% in the period, compared with 22.6% in the same quarter last year. With this, I hand back to you, Torbjörn. Thank you, Håkan. To summarize Q4, 2025, sales grew by 36% in constant currencies, reflecting steady and consistent progress. Adjusted operating margin reached 26%. Cash flow also remained robust, underscoring the strength and scalability of the business. I'm convinced that the most exciting part of our journey still lies ahead, and as said, to provide a clearer view of what that journey will look like, we will host a Capital Markets Day in Stockholm on the 26th of May this year, which you are, of course, all welcome to join. Happy to open up the line for questions. If you wish to ask a question, please dial pound key five on your telephone keypad to enter the queue. If you wish to withdraw your question, please dial pound key six on your telephone keypad. The next question comes from Viktor Sundberg from Nordea. Please go ahead. Yes, hi, thanks for taking my questions. First one on CERAMENT G in the U.S. As you mentioned, you know, year-over-year growth in the quarters are decreasing, it's mostly, you know, FX related, as you mentioned. When you say mostly, you know, is it anything that indicate any, let's say, underlying headwind in the U.S. in 2025? What kind of underlying growth have you baked into your guidance for 2026, and how does that growth compare to 2025 growth in constant exchange rates? That's my first question. Thanks. Thank you, Viktor. And I think that the takeaway from the report is two. One is again, we see a continued strong trajectory with CERAMENT G in the U.S., especially when looking at sales in average per working day. Taking that in combination, also what Torbjörn mentioned in terms of access to Level I Trauma Center, et cetera. And of course, both these aspects are aspects that have been included in our estimates and our work somewhat ahead of presenting the guidance for 2026. So we remain very optimistic on the continued opportunities for CERAMENT G in the U.S Indeed, I would like just to add to that. When we look at the performance in 25 and in Q4, we look at two important aspects of where the growth comes from in general, and also particular in CERAMENT G. It relates to new accounts, calling access, as well as increasing the adoption within existing accounts. Those two levers, independent on whether it's on surgeon level, account level, IDN level, or GPO level, we measure that and track it. What's important for us is to make sure that we have a healthy growth, not only in access and not only in adoption, we want to have it in both. What we've seen throughout 2025, as well as in Q4, is that we have a really healthy adoption, and the growth rate in on the total stems from both of those legs contributing almost to an equal size, which is very positive. That goes generally as well as for CERAMENT G. On CERAMENT G, in particular, we've already talked about the Level I Trauma Center adoption rate. I mean, in 2024, we sold to 15 of them, and in 2025, we have sold to more than 140. What we mean with sell is that we sell at least one product. Again, it's very, very early phase, but it's a really strong indication for us at least, that we get access, we get interest among orthopedic surgeons, among the infectious disease doctors, and we have a really strong foundation to build on in trauma for many, many years to come. That's on trauma. The next segment that we just started to scratch the surface on is revision arthroplasty. Early days, we have very convincing evidence, but it's a pilot study from Charité, indicating very strong results for CERAMENT G, in a revision arthroplasty segment. This also looks very promising, for both the short, medium, and long term in the U.S. On top of those parts, meaning trauma and revision arthroplasty, we have foot and ankle, which we still see a lot of potential to continue to build on, as we develop more application techniques, as we come up with more clinical studies. Then, of course, very exciting for us is when we get FDA approval for CERAMENT V. We transitioned from a 510(k) process to a De Novo process, which longer term is actually very positive for us. That, of course, adds to the total mix. We do not expect a lot of cannibalization on CERAMENT G from CERAMENT V. We believe that that's gonna be somewhat immaterial in the grander scheme of things. I think that paints the picture of our outlook, short, medium, and long term for CERAMENT G in the U.S. Okay, thanks. Maybe in Germany and the U.K. also, that's been a bit of a drag on growth in 25. How much of this drag is baked into your guidance for 2026? When do you expect this to turn around? Any sense of what the underlying demand is if, you know, funding issues would be a bit better in these countries? Thanks. We communicated already when releasing Q3, that we do not expect a swift, call it recovery in Germany. We think that Germany will remain somewhat sluggish throughout 2026. However, when it comes to U.K., and part of that, we also saw in Q4, is that we expect the situation in the U.K. to normalize in the sense that surgeries where CERAMENT is used, is coming back to normal levels. The surgical backlog in the U.K. is still a launch, which means that some other will be also periods where we see a bit about two steps forward, one step back, et cetera. Again, now, we have seen gradual improvements, Q4 confirmed that, et cetera. We remain optimistic when it comes to the U.K. Okay, that's all for me. Thanks. The next question comes from Erik Cassel, from Danske Bank. Please go ahead. Hi, morning, everyone. First, of course, everyone cares about the CERAMENT G, U.S. number and what that was organically. If I've pulled the data correct, it looked like it was up 55% organically, and that we have a USD number that was $21.9, essentially. Could you give any more detail on that sort of number, if I'm correct in that assumption? Because that would imply like an FX rate of -21%. Thank you. Again, largely, some of the numbers could be recognized. We're not sharing the exact dollar numbers as that because we're reporting in Swedish krona. But as we shared in the presentation, you have both the absolute, as much numbers in U.S. dollar sales and also the average sale per working day. And again, as communicated here, we see a continued very strong and solid trend. The 55% organic, that seems reasonable to you think? Again, somehow, if you just look at it from Q3 to Q4 in U.S. dollars and not taking work days in consideration, somehow, it is a small smart growth in Q4 to Q3. Okay, I'll leave it there. Can you maybe talk a bit on what sort of indications that happen to grow, and say, faster than the overall CERAMENT G sales in the U.S., and which indications may be lagging that growth rate a bit, so we sort of can understand what's driving this going forward? Yeah. I think if we look at the U.S. and CERAMENT G sales only, and we look at the three segments that we are in today and actively sell into, foot and ankle, of course, is the segment where we have been the longest period of time, that's where BONESUPPORT started, really. Still, both in absolute as well as in relative terms, an important contributor to the growth of CERAMENT G. Given the size of it, and given that we've been there for a number of years, it's further on in its life cycle, so to say. Second is trauma, and here, of course, relatively new segment. You saw the numbers in terms of access, so that's clearly a segment that will continue to drive growth rates both short and medium term. We're very bullish about trauma, as well as we are on revision arthroplasty. I think you can sort of relate how long we've been in the respective segments to how much relative growth rates we can expect from them. Having said that, all three segments are very important in absolute terms for us, short and medium term. Just to be totally transparent and perhaps obvious to several of you on the call, CERAMENT G for spine is not yet approved in the U.S., and will therefore not drive any growth in the short term. Longer term, we expect CERAMENT G, once it's approved and launched in the U.S. for spine, to be an important segment also in parallel to these three segments that we're already in. Okay, thank you. Should I read that as the osteomyelitis indication being a bit more matured, maybe not growing as much right now? I wouldn't read that into it. Osteomyelitis is actually an indication that can happen in foot and ankle, it can happen in trauma, and also technically can happen in also in revision arthroplasty, so I wouldn't draw that conclusion. Osteomyelitis is an underserved indication with, with a lot of unmet clinical need, where CERAMENT G and V play an important role. I would not draw that conclusion that we've reached a saturation or maturity on osteomyelitis in general. It's a very healthy and fast-growing segment for us. Okay, thank you. I just have a question on commission rates. They sort of hit a new low here in this quarter. Does that sort of imply that fewer and fewer distributors are hitting their sort of bonus quotas? If that's the case, could you maybe share a bit on sort of what's required for them to get to that sort of, I guess, 35% commission rate? This was, I think, high-end, and so you normalized lower. What's the difference there, and how much they need to sell and grow their accounts to get different bonus levels? A good question, Erik. Sounds like an area for clarification, because I guess about the line is defined as commission and fees and involves everything from commission to the distributors, GPO fees, credit card charges for the customers paying by credit card, et cetera. It's the combination of these that is down a few percentage points, it's small movements in percentage of sales. Commission remains relatively stable, around 30%. The commission are somehow included certain incentives if the distributors are exceeding their so-called quotas substantially. We see very little movement in the average commission rate to sale. The reason why it's down a few percentage points, more relates to the other aspects of fees. To that, in terms of the distributor turnover, it's part of the beauty of the model that we have in BONESUPPORT in the U.S, is that we want we want distributors to be on the journey with us. We want them to share the same goals. We actively add new distributors, and when we have distributors that are not performing in line with the targets and goals and principles that we set, we don't hesitate to phase them out. Turnover among distributors we've always had, we will continue to have that, but as Håkan said, that is not one of the reasons why we see lower commission rates. On the contrary. Okay, thank you. Just the last question. So far, I mean, we saw that surgical volumes per day was up a bit in Q4. Can you say anything on the sort of pace that has been now through January and February? If we're seeing the daily averages being roughly the same, increasing, just so we can think about the Q1 number we could expect. Yeah, no, thank you for the question. I mean, we don't comment on Q1, as you know. You know, similar to, we got a lot of questions on Q4, when we released Q3. I mean, we feel confident in the journey that we're on. We feel confident in the guidance that we have set, indicating that we should grow in constant exchange rates at least 35%. If we see any reason to change that, we will communicate it adequately and accordingly. All right. Thank you very much. I'll jump back in queue. The next question comes from Mattias Vadsten from SEB. Please go ahead. Hello, good morning. I have a couple of questions as well. First one, what you shared there regarding Level I Trauma Center. 140 versus 15, end of 2024. Just if you could share some color on how important this has been while establishing the sales guidance for 2026, and of course, also interesting to hear some insights on adoption rates in sort of early Level I Trauma Center as well. That's the first one. Sure. Starting with your first question around the guidance of 35, more than 35% growth in constant exchange rates. First of all, we have also communicated that we expect CERAMENT V to be approved by the FDA around mid this year. Of course, if we get an earlier approval and we launch earlier than that, then of course, we will distance ourselves, or we expect to distance ourselves, more on the upside versus the 35%. But however, let's say that we get late approval or no approval, then we will of course, be close to the 35%. I think that's important to just point out that that's the role of CERAMENT V. Now, when we, when we did the guidance for 2026, there's not only one factor, of course, that we take into account. We, we look at growth potential across the geographies. We look at the growth potential of the different segments that of course, trauma in the U.S. is an important segment for us, and the data point that we have on the Level I Trauma Center is an important data point as there are others as well in foot and ankle, in revision arthroplasty, in both U.S. as well as Europe and rest of the world. What is very important for us, and we've said this before, and it's important to continue to say that, it's the balance between access and adoption that is very important. We don't want to just only grow by getting new accounts. We don't only want to grow by increasing the adoption in existing accounts. We want to have a healthy balance between the two. That's also a very important factor when we've put the guidance together. Another also very important factor is when we simply, again, recalculate the penetration, meaning that the number of surgeries that we are in by geography, by market segment, versus what we think is a realistic or longer term outlook. We still believe that we have a long runway to get to, what we think are perfectly realistic penetration levels. I think, Mattias, it's not just the trauma number, but it's an important factor as and combined with many other factors, as I just described. Good. Are you happy with what you see in terms of adoption in the Level I Trauma Center that you want early days? Yes, very happy. Good. I just have a follow-up on the revision arthroplasty segment that you discussed here in the presentation, which was good. Your position here and maybe how much work is yet to be done for BONESUPPORT in terms of evidence and so forth, to be able to, you know, have an ideal position, call it, for a more material contribution and a, yeah, better sales pitch around the segment. That's my next one. Yeah, very good. It's early days for us in revision arthroplasty. We have a fantastic pilot study that came out of Charité, as communicated last year. I mean, the results from that couldn't have been better from a BONESUPPORT or, and CERAMENT point of view, showing excellent results. Again, it's a pilot study, and the number of patients is limited. We're building on that study, going forward, and I think this is the area where we, over several years, will need to do a lot more, which is perfectly natural, and that's part of the BONESUPPORT approach to penetrate a new market segment, meaning that we always lead with evidence. We know that our product is very innovative. It has unique capabilities in terms of its handling and in terms of, of, how it elutes antibiotic. But we always lead with evidence. A lot more work remains to be done in revision arthroplasty on the evidence side. More specific evidence. We're working on it. We've initiated new studies, and we will continue to initiate new studies in this field. However, orthopedic surgeons, in general, they understand the unmet clinical need in the space of revision arthroplasty, where typically you face two challenges. Number one, how do you heal the bone? How do you make sure that you grow bone in areas where you, for example, have bone voids as a result of explanting the implants in a revision situation? Having to deal with bone voids is normal, and it's standard for a revision arthroplasty surgeon. We have a great solution for that with CERAMENT. Infections in revision arthroplasty is one of the key reasons why primary implants need to be revised because the patients have infections. Dealing with infections is also high on the agenda of the revision arthroplasty surgeons. There, with CERAMENT G and V in Europe, and hopefully when we get the approval for V in the U.S., we have a very, very intuitive solution that we already see now, surgeons are willing to try and test. Some of them, surgeons actually already use it as part of their standard routine. Several surgeons want to wait until we have more evidence, but nothing is stopping us to enter this segment and penetrating this segment already now. Of course, we need more evidence. In addition to that, we believe very much in specialization of our sales channels, meaning that a revision arthroplasty surgeon is not the same guy that does trauma, who's not the same guy that does foot and ankle. We need specialization in our go-to-market channels. That's, of course, another aspect that we need to make sure that we get relevant sales channels, whether that's distributors as well as direct people, to go deeper in the respective market segments. I hope that answers your question. Absolutely. Good answer. My last one is fairly quick. In terms of working days that you discussed here, how many fewer working days was it Q4 vis-à-vis Q3? Was it like two days or? It was, three days shorter, if I remember. Three or days days, but I, as my memory is not skewing me, it's three days shorter. Okay, thank you very much. The next question comes from Kristoffer Liljeberg from Carnegie. Please go ahead. Hi, good morning. I have three or four questions. The first one on this, is sequential growth for CERAMENT in the U.S. per surgery day seems much stronger in Q4 versus pretty weak third quarter. Could you explain, is there any particular reason for this or just natural swings between quarters? Thank you. Again, as much as we refer to underlying natural swings quarter to quarter in Q3, somehow, that explanation remains in Q4. Again, somehow, it's, it's as with forward-looking estimates, there are several parameters, somehow, that is moving and so on. I don't see any specifics, and I'm looking at Torbjörn, but I think that we share that view. Okay, good. The better growth in Europe, would you say that's sustainable? Just making sure that there is no positive one-off larger orders or anything this quarter, explaining the much better growth in Q4 versus what we have seen previously. Again, somehow, what was positive to see, Kristoffer, was the improvement in the U.K., somehow, to see what's been in our analysis, to see that also realized. At the same time, we remain modest. We have to remain modest, because, again, somehow, as I mentioned in the call, the surgical backlog remains long in the U.K. So there could be short periods of swings back to a slower momentum and so on, and then swing back again, et cetera. Again, I think we're remaining optimistic, good to see the improvements in Q4. When we look at the investment markets, I call it, somehow, we expect that momentum to continue. When looking outside our direct markets and investments that made in our so-called hybrid markets, Italy, Spain, Australia, South Africa, Canada, just to mention a few. Again, there, we start from quite a low penetration level, and there are so much market potential remaining in these markets. We believe that the investments done is a good way to capture that potential. Okay, good. Then my third question. You mentioned the increased number of trauma centers that you are selling to. Still early days, but have you reached good adoption already at some of those centers, or is that also too early to see? I mean, clearly in some of them, but still it's a very small number where we have reached a solid adoption level. It's really early days, and if you again, the definition that we use here is that selling to, meaning that we've sold minimum one packet of CERAMENT. Of course, some of them, early adopters that were early out, we have good adoption level, but not even close to what we think is the potential. I mean, just do the math. Most of these trauma centers that we've sold to are still very early in their journey. We'll keep ourselves busy to increase the adoption in these Level I trauma centers in the U.S. Okay, thank you. Finally, just a clarification when it comes to guidance for 2026. You have included, as it seems, then very little or no CERAMENT V sales in the guidance. Yeah, that's correct. That's to be prudent because we only know what we know, and although we have a great dialogue with FDA, you never know with FDA. We follow their guidance, similar to what we did now in Q4, in terms of transferring it, transferring CERAMENT V from a from a 510(k) to a De Novo. We think that although unexpected to us, we think it was a very good decision longer term for us. It is important that we follow and deliver on what FDA wants us to. Of course, if we don't get CERAMENT, we still believe that the 35% growth rate is definitely realistic, but it's gonna be a lot easier to over-deliver if we get an early approval of CERAMENT BVF in the first half of this year. Okay. Thank you very much. The next question comes from Sten Gustafsson from ABG Sundal Collier. Please go ahead. Yes, thank you. Good morning. As a follow-up on the U.S. market penetration and adoption, I think to ask it in a different way. I think in the past, you have shared with us a number of surgeons you have trained. I believe, maybe I'm mistaken here, but the last number I have in my head is 1,000 surgeons. I was wondering if you could update me on where you, where you are today on that number? Yeah. No, good question, Sten. Thank you very much. First of all, to put your question into context, this relates to all the sort of relevant surgeons in the fields that we're in today, excluding spine. That relates to foot and ankle, trauma, and revision arthroplasty. The boring part of my answer is that, no, we're not gonna provide an update to that number. We don't have that routine yet. When we have that routine, and when we have updated numbers that we're willing to disclose, we will, of course, do that. Having said that, we are not slowing down. We're putting our foot on the gas to accelerate, which I think we see from both the financial as well as the operational numbers, including that reference point around the major trauma centers. Because clearly, you don't really get access without training an orthopedic surgeon. I understand. those Level I Trauma Center, you know, on average, do they have, like, 50 or 100 different surgeons, or what's the size like? I mean, it, of course, varies, depending, I mean, in total, U.S., as per our segmentation, we have 250 Level I major trauma centers. If you're a major trauma centers, you're not running around with only sort of five trauma surgeons. Then you're not the major trauma centers. It can vary, and I don't wanna put a number out there, but, you know, there, it could be anything I would only be guessing, but, there are several, you know, quite a number of trauma surgeons on these different centers. Our ambition in the first place is to focus on the market segments, of course, where we focus on, so foot and ankle, and trauma, and then focus on the most complex, difficult cases within trauma, where we see that CERAMENT G adds the most clinical value. You typically start with one, maybe two surgeons and one ID doc. You start there, only one indication or one type of case, and then you expand from there. That's a journey that honestly can take several years. Of course, we wanna do it in the right way and make sure that we and our product adds value to not only the orthopedic surgeon, but also the hospital and the healthcare system. Makes sense. My next question would be on BVF and spine in particular. I noticed a nice uptick in the or, and change in growth trajectory for CERAMENT BVF in North America. I was wondering, how much of that is sort of quarterly variation, and how much is related to spine? Well, given the fact that we honestly initiated the launch in December on Spine BVF, and we tried to keep it a very focused launch in Q4, I wouldn't draw any conclusions that it is the spine launch in the U.S. with the CERAMENT BVF, that sort of made that number look the way it looks. It's more normal variations. Okay, excellent. My final question is India, what's the timeline looking like? You know, what type of potential are we or should we consider for India? Yeah. No, India, I mean. Of course, no sales in Q4 for India. When we look at India strategic long term, it's an attractive market for a couple of reasons. The main reason is it's a lot of people in India. Second, there's a lot of people who are willing to pay for care in India. The approach that we take is a very focused approach on private payers and the hospitals that serve this patient population. When we look at those, that patient population in terms of size, it's a sizable segment, very attractive longer term. What we see now in India, it's first early steps and longer term, give it a couple of years, it could be an important contributor for us. Most importantly, it's another growth leg to have in Europe and rest of the world. Because we say that a lot of times, even in Europe and rest of the world, we're very, very early phase. We depend and have depended a lot on U.K. and Germany, and we've been painfully aware of that when we have had the market reforms in Germany. Adding India is an attractive segment, but again, as with all countries, it will take time. If you count the total population, and if you segment that population into how many of them do have private insurers and how many of them have access to certain private hospitals, we feel very confident about that number, and we expect sales to start in India already in first half of 2026, sorry. Excellent. Thank you very much. I'll get back into the queue. The next question comes from Oscar Bergman, from Redeye. Please go ahead. Hi, Torbjörn and Håkan. I just have three questions for you. The first one, I think, a few with ambassador sites for bone infection, could you give sort of a ballpark figure of what% of relevant procedures on down CERAMENT G today? I mean, have they, or have you become the standard of care at some of the centers in the U.S.? Great question. To answer that last part, I, I would dare to say yes, but it's still only a relatively small number where we have genuinely become the standard of care. Of course, it goes to what's the definition of standard of care? Do you only look at one patient indication? Do you look at several, et cetera, et cetera. I think we're getting traction. Clearly, one very important way to establish this for us is to look at our great collaboration with the Oxford Bone Infection Unit in the U.K., and we have a fantastic collaboration and partnership with them. One of the best ways we can educate patients in the U.S., or sorry, educate the surgeons in the U.S., is simply by sending them to Oxford and see how they work with it. We see great results, including that, changing the standard of care, moving to more CERAMENT use in their daily practice. I would say, yes, there are centers in the U.S. that have changed their standard of care, but it's still very early days. I don't have any hard data to share. Okay. Do you know if those centers are typically university hospitals? Yeah, I mean, one of the key strategies in the U.S. that we have and had for several quarters and potentially years, is that we target academic medical centers. That is simply because that's where they are very evidence and research-focused, so they actually pay a lot of attention to the evidence that we have. You know that one of the key pillars in our strategy is to invest in and promote and lead by evidence. That sort of fits like a hand in the glove to that. Commercially, it's a really good way to sell and target academic medical centers because they train a lot of fellows that when they're done training and when they're done with their fellowships, they go to somewhere else. They could go to a different academic medical center, or they could start their own practice or go somewhere else. Definitely, our product fits very well in academic medical centers, simply because it's much higher evidence level on our product than what's currently on the market. Okay. India, it's very, very interesting to hear about. I assume that the regulatory processes there are piggybacking CE mark for CERAMENT and maybe FDA, right? Yeah, I mean, I mean, of course, we use the clinical data, and we use the material that we've produced for U.S., that we've used for Europe. India is a particular country and with a somewhat complicated process, but we've the team has done a fantastic job on that, and we're getting very close to starting the launch in India in the first half of 2026. Okay. Are there any other markets that you to aim to launch at in the near to medium term? I think we spoke about Japan before, very high level, of course, but, would be interesting to hear about, Japan. Yeah, yeah. I mean, Japan is still on the list. It's a very attractive orthopedic market. similar to India, somewhat complex regulatory pathway to enter in Japan, but we're actively working on it. We've said that before also, so there's no change in that strategy, and we're getting closer to launch. from a timing-wise, India will happen before Japan. Okay. You also mentioned some safety inventory and longer payment terms due to the holidays. Is it a fair assumption then to make that your free cash flow conversion should normalize already in Q1? Again, I think that when you look at that, Oscar, it's key to see, you have some accounts receivables, but you also have accounts receivables in combination with some of the so-called case sheets that is reported as accrued revenue. Part of the increase in accounts receivables in Q4 relates to a reduction in accrued revenue or open case sheets end of Q4 compared to Q3. The rest is simply somehow that payments has been deferred from December to after the holidays. With that, yes, now we can expect somehow to see the situation stabilize and normalize going into Q1. Again, somehow the balance sheet is measured on the clock on one day. There will always be volatility in the balance sheet, but over time, as well, cash flow never lies. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. The next question comes from Viktor Sundberg, from Nordea. Please go ahead. Yes, thanks for allowing a follow-up here. Just to follow up on your progress in trauma. One of the worries in the market with regards to trauma in the U.S. has been that maybe surgeons do not always feel the acute need to prophylactically use infection prevention in surgery risk with a product such as CERAMENT G, that, you know, comes with a bit of a price premium to other products without infection prevention, in contrast to osteomyelitis, when the infection is already always present at the intervention. Can you just comment on that as you have met more surgeons, you know, day to day at this Level I Trauma Centers and have got their feedback, if this is correct or not, to look at adoption in trauma in that way? Maybe also quickly, the NTAP here, you know, any more color on how the added NTAP for trauma and the drop NTAP for osteomyelitis will impact U.S. sales when we have moved a bit into 2026, and you might have gotten a bit more data on this dynamic? Thanks. Yeah. We'll start with the second question first for simplicity, and then we'll comment on the first one. In Q4, we did not see any material impact, negative impact of the lost NTAP that actually came into effect October 1st. We don't see that we lose volume due to that. Again, early days, but in Q4, we didn't have any signals on that. I think to your point on trauma surgeons, prophylactically or not, I think we need to start even more basic in trauma. Meaning that actually, when there is a very high risk of infection or actually, that they have confirmed infection, that's where we start with in trauma. I don't think that we have reached any maturity or saturation on that level. Once we've done that, then, of course, it comes to prophylactic. Prophylactically, of course, is always more challenging than the starting point, but once you get the starting point right, my experience is at least that once you get that right, you see, and you get the surgeons to understand and see the value that CERAMENT has, then moving into that prophylactic stage becomes more natural. Different surgeons, different clinics, different centers are in different parts of this journey, but I would argue that still prophylactically is, you know, further out, but we're making really good progress by starting with the basics and getting them to be aware and understand the role of CERAMENT G in these type of cases. Okay, thanks. There are no more questions at this time, so I hand the conference back to the speakers for any closing comments. No, with that, thank you all for your interest, and we wish you all a great rest of the day. Thank you.