Surgical and Medical Instrument Manufacturing (U.S.) — Industry Primer

NAICS 2022 code 339112

1. Overview

This is the industry that makes the physical tools of medicine that are not electronic imaging or power machines: syringes and hypodermic needles, catheters and guidewires, surgical clamps and scissors, anesthesia and blood-transfusion apparatus, endoscopes and the hand instruments used in an operating room, plus the disposable instruments that feed robotic surgery [3]. If a clinician holds it, inserts it, or cuts with it, there is a good chance it was made by a firm in this code.

Why an investor cares: it sits on top of two durable tailwinds — an aging population and a long shift toward less-invasive, higher-volume procedures — and it earns money in a way investors like: a large slice of revenue is recurring, single-use disposables and instruments sold again and again against an installed base of hospitals and surgery centers [5][7]. Demand is relatively insensitive to the economy (people still have surgery in a recession), but it is very sensitive to hospital budgets, reimbursement, and regulation.

Ways in. Public-market investors can buy the large listed device makers directly or through medical-device exchange-traded funds; the sector is unusually rich in pure and near-pure listed plays (Section 4). Private investors meet the industry mostly through the "picks-and-shovels" layer — contract manufacturers (firms that build devices for the brand-name companies), component and precision-machining suppliers, and venture-stage surgical-robotics and single-use-instrument startups — which is where private-equity roll-ups and venture capital concentrate [22].

2. What it is and how it's structured

Scope. NAICS 339112 covers establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing medical, surgical, ophthalmic, and veterinary instruments and apparatus — explicitly excluding electrotherapeutic, electromedical, and irradiation devices. Census lists typical products as syringes, hypodermic needles, anesthesia apparatus, blood-transfusion equipment, catheters, surgical clamps, and medical thermometers [3].

What it excludes (this matters, because the giant "medtech" names straddle several codes):

• 334510 — Electromedical and Electrotherapeutic Apparatus (pacemakers, defibrillators, MRI/ultrasound, patient monitors) [3].
• 334517 — Irradiation Apparatus (X-ray, CT, radiation-therapy machines) [3].
• 339113 — Surgical Appliance and Supplies (orthopedic implants, surgical dressings, prosthetics, wheelchairs) [3].
• 339114 — Dental Equipment and Supplies; 339115 — Ophthalmic Goods (eyeglasses, contact lenses) [3].
• In-vitro diagnostics and reagents fall in other codes again.

The practical consequence: a company like Stryker or Medtronic books revenue across implants (339113), electromedical (334510), and instruments (339112). No single code captures a diversified medtech firm — a point that recurs in the size and universe sections. NAICS describes establishments, not consolidated companies; a diversified manufacturer may own one plant classified in 339112, another in electromedical equipment, and a third in surgical supplies.

Ownership mix. This is a private-enterprise, for-profit manufacturing industry — not government-run and not dominated by tiny sole proprietors. The 2022 Economic Census counts 1,033 firms operating 1,310 establishments [1][2], i.e. most firms run a single plant, with a minority of multi-site companies. It ranges from a handful of very large multinationals down to hundreds of small specialist machine shops and single-use-instrument makers, many of which manufacture on contract for larger brands.

3. How big it is

Our federal ground-truth figures for NAICS 339112:

Two things stand out. First, average pay of roughly $93,000 is well above the manufacturing average — this is a skilled, cleanroom, quality-controlled workforce, not commodity assembly [1]. Second, the average establishment employs about 101 people [1], again pointing to a mid-scale precision-manufacturing profile rather than either giant plants or garage shops.

The undercount caveat — read this before comparing to the company revenues below. The $40.26 billion is domestic factory shipments by establishments whose primary activity is 339112 [2]. It is not the amount U.S. hospitals spend on surgical instruments, for three reasons: (a) the U.S. imports a large share of devices and components, and imports are not domestic shipments [11]; (b) the surgical-instrument output of diversified giants is spread across their global accounts and adjacent NAICS codes, so it isn't fully counted here; and (c) it excludes the far larger implant (339113) and electromedical (334510) segments. For scale: the broader U.S. medical-device market was estimated near $191 billion in 2025, of which surgical equipment is roughly one-sixth, and the United States accounted for roughly 46% of global medical-device sales in 2024 [6][7][24]. So treat $40.26 billion as a clean read on domestic instrument manufacturing, not on the size of the medtech sector or on the revenues of the companies in Section 4.

4. The investable universe

Unusually for a manufacturing code, the public options are plentiful — but almost every large name spans multiple NAICS codes, so read the "core exposure" column as where their instrument business sits, not as pure-play purity. Company figures are global consolidated revenue for the latest reported fiscal year and are far larger than the $40.26 billion domestic-shipments figure above, for the reasons in Section 3.

The cleanest listed proxies for the instrument trade are BD, Intuitive Surgical, Teleflex, Merit Medical, Integra, and CONMED; Medtronic, J&J, Stryker, Abbott, and Boston Scientific are diversified medtech and only partly "339112." Medtronic is legally domiciled in Ireland, a reminder that headquarters and NAICS establishment counts don't always line up.

Private and other owners. The unlisted layer is large and is where most private-investor activity happens: contract development and manufacturing organizations (CDMOs) that build devices for the brands (a global market estimated around $89 billion in 2025, growing double-digit) [22]; precision-machining and component suppliers; and venture-backed surgical-robotics and single-use-instrument startups seeking FDA clearance. Notable private names include Cook Medical (family-owned, broad catheter and device portfolio) [27], Freudenberg Medical (catheter and component manufacturing) [28], and Viant (contract development and manufacturing) [29]. Private equity has been actively rolling up the contract-manufacturing and components tier [22].

5. How the money works

Owners in this industry make money on unit economics and recurring consumables, not on one-time equipment sales.

• The razor-and-blade model. Capital equipment (a robotic surgery system, an endoscopy tower) is often sold at modest margin to place an installed base; the profit comes from the disposable instruments, catheters, and accessories consumed with every procedure thereafter. Intuitive Surgical is the textbook case: in 2025 its instruments, accessories, service, and operating leases generated $8.5 billion — 84% of its $10.1 billion total revenue — while system sales contributed the remainder [16]. Recurring revenue against a growing installed base is the metric to watch.
• Gross margin and mix. Branded device makers typically run high gross margins (often 55–70%), reflecting patent-protected products, regulatory barriers, and consumable mix; Stryker reported a 64% gross margin in 2025, while Intuitive recorded $6.6 billion of gross profit on $10.1 billion of revenue [13][16]. A pure contract manufacturer runs far thinner margins because it sells capacity, not brands — ICU Medical, for instance, reported a 38% gross margin in Q4 2025 [25]. Watch gross-margin direction — in 2025 several firms reported margin compression from tariffs and from re-regionalizing supply chains [22][11].
• Volume drives growth. Stryker's 2025 constant-currency organic growth came 9.9% from higher unit volume and only 0.4% from price, illustrating how procedure and shipment volume can matter more than pricing even for a strong supplier [13].
• Capacity utilization and input costs. As a manufacturer, profitability turns on keeping skilled cleanroom capacity full and on the cost of inputs — surgical stainless steel and specialty alloys, medical-grade polymers, and electromechanical components (many imported) [11].
• Barriers as a moat. FDA clearance/approval, quality-system compliance, surgeon training, and hospital purchasing relationships create high switching costs and long product lifecycles — which is why incumbents defend share and why acquirers pay up for approved, revenue-generating product lines rather than building from scratch [8][22].
• Backlog matters for the capital-equipment portion (system orders), while the disposable business behaves more like a subscription tied to procedure volume. Intuitive reports that system placements are normally heavier in the fourth quarter and that benign elective procedures fluctuate with holidays and insurance-deductible timing [16].
• Contract-manufacturer economics. CDMOs trade commercial risk for concentration risk. Integer Holdings, a leading CDMO, discloses that Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic collectively represented 49% of its 2025 sales; it also describes the medical-device CDMO industry as traditionally fragmented among several hundred companies [26].

6. What drives demand

• Demographics and disease. An aging U.S. population and rising chronic disease (cardiovascular, orthopedic, oncologic) drive procedure volumes, the ultimate unit of demand. The U.S. population aged 65 and older increased 9.4% between 2020 and 2023 to approximately 59.2 million, driven by longevity and the aging baby-boom generation [6][7][30]. Older patients use disproportionate amounts of cardiovascular, orthopedic, urological, ophthalmic, and surgical care.
• The shift to minimally invasive and robotic surgery. Less-invasive techniques expand the addressable pool of patients and, crucially, consume more single-use instruments per case — a structural boost to the recurring-revenue model [5][7]. These trends can also create substitution: Medtronic reported that fiscal-2025 stapling sales were hurt by weakness in U.S. bariatric procedures and continued migration toward robotic surgery [31].
• Site-of-care shift. Procedures moving from inpatient hospitals to outpatient ambulatory surgery centers expand the buyer base and the installed base of equipment.
• Reimbursement and hospital economics. Because hospitals and surgery centers are the buyers, demand is gated by their capital budgets and by what payers — the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and private insurers — reimburse for procedures. Reimbursement changes can accelerate or stall adoption of a new instrument regardless of its clinical merit [7].
• Innovation cycles. New approvals and new procedure types create fresh disposable streams; conversely, a product without a favorable coverage decision struggles. Pharmaceuticals can eliminate or defer procedures, reusable or remanufactured instruments can reduce disposable consumption, and a new platform can strand an incumbent installed base.

7. Regulation

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) is the gatekeeper. Devices are risk-classified I, II, or III, which sets the market-entry pathway [8]:

• Class I (low risk — most basic instruments): general controls, often exempt from premarket review.
• Class II (moderate risk — most surgical instruments and catheters): cleared via a 510(k) premarket notification, which demonstrates "substantial equivalence" to an already-marketed predicate device. FDA's FY2025 performance goal is a decision in roughly 90 days for a well-prepared submission; the newer De Novo route handles novel low-to-moderate-risk devices lacking a predicate [9].
• Class III (high risk): full Premarket Approval (PMA), requiring clinical evidence of safety and effectiveness — a process that can run several years and tens of millions of dollars [9].

A terminology note: "FDA cleared" (the 510(k) pathway) is not the same as "FDA approved" (the PMA pathway) — a distinction frequently blurred in industry commentary [32][33].

Beyond market entry, manufacturers must run a compliant quality system. FDA's Quality Management System Regulation (QMSR) became effective on February 2, 2026, incorporating ISO 13485:2016 into device current-good-manufacturing-practice requirements and allowing inspection of records including supplier and internal audits [34][35]. Manufacturers must also maintain Unique Device Identification (UDI) labeling and file adverse-event and recall reports; Class II accounts for the large majority of device recalls [9]. Exporters additionally face the EU Medical Device Regulation and other national regimes.

Three policy notes for investors. First, the 2.3% medical-device excise tax created under the Affordable Care Act — long a sector bogeyman — was suspended repeatedly and then permanently repealed in December 2019; it is not a current cost, but its history shows the sector's tax exposure is politically live [10]. Second, early-2025 federal workforce reductions cut roughly 180 CDRH staff, raising industry concern about review-timeline capacity — a forward-looking risk to watch rather than a settled fact [9]. Third, sterilization regulation remains unsettled: FDA estimates that roughly 50% of sterile U.S. medical devices are sterilized with ethylene oxide (EtO), often the only practical method for certain polymers and complex devices such as catheters [36]. EPA's 2024 rule sought emissions reductions exceeding 90% at nearly 90 commercial sterilization facilities [37], but EPA proposed repealing that rule in March 2026 because of compliance and medical-supply concerns, leaving both regulation and capacity planning uncertain [38].

8. Competitive dynamics and consolidation

Within the pure 339112 census slice, concentration is only moderate: the four largest firms account for about 26% of receipts, the top 8 about 36%, the top 20 about 54%, and the top 50 about 74%, with a Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (a standard concentration gauge) of just 271 — well below the ~1,500 threshold regulators treat as "moderately concentrated" [2]. That low reading reflects the hundreds of small specialist and contract manufacturers in the code, and the fact that the diversified giants' output is split across several NAICS codes so it doesn't pile up inside this one.

The lived competitive reality is more concentrated than that number suggests. A few global platforms (Medtronic, J&J, Stryker, BD, Boston Scientific) dominate surgeon relationships and hospital contracts, they buy from a fragmented supplier base beneath them, and they sell through powerful group purchasing organizations (GPOs) that aggregate hospital demand and squeeze price. Many niches — robotic instruments, structural-heart devices, particular catheter technologies or surgical-energy platforms — have only a few meaningful competitors because regulatory history, patents, clinician familiarity, and installed equipment create high switching costs.

Consolidation is the industry's default motion: incumbents acquire approved product lines and technologies rather than build them, and 2025 saw continued M&A across both branded medtech and the contract-manufacturing tier (for example, Quasar Medical's purchase of Nordson's contract-manufacturing operations) [22]. High switching costs — surgeon training, integration into hospital workflows, regulatory clearance tied to a specific product — protect incumbents and make scale and an approved portfolio the core competitive assets.

9. Risks

• Pricing power sits with the buyer. Hospital consolidation and GPOs push prices down; unfavorable CMS or private-payer reimbursement decisions can freeze demand for an otherwise sound product [7].
• Tariffs and import dependence. 2025 tariff actions raised input and finished-goods costs materially; industry estimates put added cost at $2,000–$8,000 per complex device, and firms flagged margin hits and supply re-regionalization. Many "U.S.-made" instruments rely on 50–80% imported components [11]. One large diversified maker guided to roughly $400 million of 2025 tariff expense [11].
• Regulatory and recall risk. A failed submission, a warning letter, or a recall can pull products and revenue; Class II devices (the heart of this industry) carry the bulk of recalls. FDA defines a Class I recall as one involving a reasonable chance of serious health consequences or death [9][39]. FDA review-capacity concerns add uncertainty [9].
• Sterilization bottleneck. Roughly half of sterile devices rely on ethylene oxide sterilization, and EPA's shifting rules (a 2024 emissions rule proposed for repeal in 2026) create planning uncertainty for both sterilizers and device manufacturers dependent on their capacity [36][37][38].
• Sole-source and input risk. Stryker discloses sole-source materials, components, finished devices, and sterilization services, as well as previous electronic-component shortages, and notes that inflation, tariffs, and supplier pricing have not always been fully recoverable from customers [13].
• Product-liability litigation. Implanted and invasive products expose makers to large, long-tail legal claims.
• Technology disruption. Robotics, energy-based devices, and new single-use platforms can obsolete an incumbent instrument line quickly.
• Input, labor, and FX. Specialty metals and polymers, a genuine skilled-labor shortage that complicates reshoring, and large foreign-currency exposure for the global names all pressure margins [11][21].

10. How to invest and the outlook

Public routes. The listed names in Section 4 span every size from mega-cap diversified medtech (Medtronic, J&J, Stryker, BD, Boston Scientific) to focused instrument pure-plays (Intuitive Surgical, Teleflex, Merit Medical, Integra, CONMED) down to a genuine small-cap (Utah Medical). Investors should underwrite the relevant product franchises rather than consolidated revenue — Medtronic's Medical Surgical segment, for example, generated $8.4 billion in fiscal 2025 but includes monitoring and other activities outside 339112 [31]. Investors wanting breadth rather than single-name risk typically use medical-device exchange-traded funds such as the iShares U.S. Medical Devices ETF (IHI) (0.38% expense ratio) or the SPDR S&P Health Care Equipment ETF (XHE) (0.35% expense ratio, 68 holdings as of March 2026) [40][41]; those funds hold this industry alongside the excluded electromedical and implant codes, so they are a "medtech" bet, not a pure instrument bet. Company-level metrics to check — recurring/disposable revenue mix, installed-base growth, gross margin trend, and R&D and pipeline — are laid out in Section 5. (Tickers, prices, yields, and multiples are the domain of the brokerage screen, not this primer.)

Private routes. Because the manufacturing base beneath the brands is fragmented, private capital concentrates on: contract manufacturers and CDMOs (a fast-growing, defensively-contracted segment attracting private-equity roll-ups) [22]; component, precision-machining, and sterilization suppliers; and venture-stage surgical-robotics and single-use-instrument startups seeking FDA clearance. The most important diligence questions are product-level gross margin, procedure recurrence, installed-base pull-through, FDA pathway and inspection history, recall exposure, customer concentration, sole-source inputs, validated capacity, sterilization dependence, facility-transfer difficulty, tooling ownership, and maintenance capital expenditure. These offer exposure to the same demand tailwinds without the branded-incumbent premium — at the cost of liquidity and single-asset regulatory risk.

Outlook (forward-looking judgment). The structural case is durable: aging demographics, the continued shift to minimally invasive and robotic surgery, and the recurring-consumable model should keep unit volumes and recurring revenue growing through the back half of the decade, with third-party forecasts for the broader U.S. device market clustering around a mid-single-digit annual growth rate [6][7]. The near-term swing factors are policy and cost, not demand: how far 2025-era tariffs and supply-chain re-regionalization compress margins [11], whether FDA review capacity holds up [9], how sterilization regulation evolves [38], and how hard hospital budgets and reimbursement squeeze price [7]. For patient investors the industry's appeal is the same as it has always been — non-cyclical demand, high margins, recurring revenue, and steady consolidation — with the caveat that this is now a policy- and trade-exposed manufacturing business, not a purely defensive one.

---

Sources

1. U.S. Census Bureau. County Business Patterns 2023 — NAICS 339112 (establishments, employment, annual payroll). 2023. https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/cbp.html
2. U.S. Census Bureau. 2022 Economic Census — Concentration and receipts, NAICS 339112 (firms, receipts, CR4/CR8/CR20/CR50, HHI). 2022. https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/economic-census.html
3. NAICS Association / U.S. Census Bureau. NAICS 2022 Code 339112 — Surgical and Medical Instrument Manufacturing: definition, example products, and cross-references. 2022. https://www.naics.com/naics-code-description/?code=339112
4. U.S. Small Business Administration. Table of Small Business Size Standards (NAICS 339112 = 1,000 employees). 2023. https://www.sba.gov/document/support-table-size-standards
5. IBISWorld. Surgical Instrument Manufacturing in the US — Industry Analysis. 2025. https://www.ibisworld.com/united-states/industry/surgical-instrument-manufacturing/4103/
6. Grand View Research. U.S. Medical Device Manufacturers Market Size Report, 2030. 2025. https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/us-medical-device-manufacturers-market
7. Precedence Research. U.S. Medical Devices Market Size (USD 191.20 B in 2025). 2025. https://www.precedenceresearch.com/us-medical-devices-market
8. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Overview of Device Regulation (device classes I–III). https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/device-advice-comprehensive-regulatory-assistance/overview-device-regulation
9. IntuitionLabs / FDA. FDA 510(k) Premarket Notification, De Novo, and PMA pathways; FY2025 review goals and CDRH staffing. 2025. https://intuitionlabs.ai/pdfs/fda-510-k-explained-medical-device-premarket-notification.pdf
10. MassDevice / BDO. Medical device excise tax permanently repealed (Dec. 2019). 2019–2020. https://www.massdevice.com/medical-device-tax-is-permanently-repealed/
11. Everstream Analytics; BioPharma Dive; Baker McKenzie. 2025 tariffs and medical-device supply chains — rates, per-device cost impact, import dependence. 2025. https://www.everstream.ai/articles/hidden-risk-tariffs-medical-devices/
12. MassDevice. The 10 largest medical device companies (Medtronic, J&J MedTech, Abbott). 2025. https://www.massdevice.com/largest-medical-device-companies-2025/
13. Stryker Corporation. Full-Year 2025 results ($25.1 B revenue, 64% gross margin, volume/price breakdown), Form 10-K. 2026. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/310764/000031076426000010/syk-20251231.htm
14. Becton, Dickinson and Company. FY2025 results ($21.8 B revenue), Form 8-K. 2025. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/10795/000162828025049835/ex99109302025.htm
15. Boston Scientific. 2025 Annual Report ($20.1 B revenue). 2025. https://investors.bostonscientific.com/~/media/Files/B/Boston-Scientific-IR-V3/2025-annual-report.pdf
16. Intuitive Surgical. FY2025 results ($10.1 B total; instruments/accessories/service/leases $8.5 B), Form 10-K. 2026. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1035267/000103526726000010/isrg-20251231.htm
17. Teleflex Incorporated. FY2024 results ($3.05 B) and 2025 continuing-operations results after divestiture. 2025–2026. https://investors.teleflex.com/news/news-details/2026/Teleflex-Reports-2025-Financial-Results-and-Full-Year-2026-Outlook/default.aspx
18. Integra LifeSciences. Fourth Quarter and Full-Year 2025 results ($1.64 B). 2026. https://seekingalpha.com/pr/20414812
19. CONMED Corporation. Fourth Quarter and Full-Year 2025 results ($1.374 B). 2026. https://orthospinenews.com/2026/01/28/conmed-corporation-announces-fourth-quarter-and-full-year-2025-financial-results/
20. Merit Medical Systems. Q3 2025 results (~$384 M quarter; ~$1.5 B run-rate), Form 8-K. 2025. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/856982/000085698225000055/mmsi-20251030xex99d1.htm
21. Medical Economics. Reshoring medical device manufacturing — labor pool and cost. 2025. https://www.medicaleconomics.com/view/reshoring-medical-device-manufacturing-does-the-us-have-the-labor-pool-
22. MPO / Xtalks; DelveInsight. 2025 medical-device M&A roundup and the contract-manufacturing (CDMO) market (~$89 B in 2025). 2025. https://www.mpo-mag.com/breaking-news/2025-medical-device-companies-ma-roundup-updated-1-7/
23. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. CES Table B-1a, Employment — Medical equipment and supplies manufacturing (NAICS 3391), Feb 2026. 2026. https://www.bls.gov/ces/data/employment-and-earnings/2026/table1a_202603.htm
24. SelectUSA / U.S. Department of Commerce. Life sciences industry overview (U.S. = 46% of global medical-device sales, 2024). https://www.trade.gov/selectusa-life-sciences-industry
25. ICU Medical. Q4 and Full-Year 2025 results (38% gross margin Q4 2025). 2026. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/883984/000088398426000007/exhibit991q42025er.htm
26. Integer Holdings Corporation. 2025 Annual Report (customer concentration, CDMO fragmentation). 2026. https://s206.q4cdn.com/600014855/files/doc_financials/2025/ar/2025-Integer-Holdings-Corporation-ITGR-Annual-Report.pdf
27. Cook Medical. Company history. https://www.cookmedical.com/about/
28. Freudenberg Medical. Company overview. https://www.freudenberg.com/en/technologies/pioneering-portfolio/freudenberg-medical
29. Viant. About — contract development and manufacturing. https://viantmedical.com/company/about/
30. U.S. Census Bureau. Metro areas with the oldest populations (65+ increased 9.4% to 59.2 M, 2020–2023). 2024. https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2024/06/metro-areas-population-age.html
31. Medtronic plc. Fiscal 2025 Form 10-K (Medical Surgical segment, stapling/robotics commentary). 2025. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1613103/000161310325000091/mdt-20250425.htm
32. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Classify Your Medical Device. https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/overview-device-regulation/classify-your-medical-device
33. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Premarket Notification 510(k). https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/premarket-submissions-selecting-and-preparing-correct-submission/premarket-notification-510k
34. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Quality Management System Regulation (QMSR). https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/postmarket-requirements-devices/quality-management-system-regulation-qmsr
35. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. QMSR Frequently Asked Questions. https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/quality-management-system-regulation-qmsr/quality-management-system-regulation-frequently-asked-questions
36. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Sterilization for Medical Devices (EtO usage). https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/general-hospital-devices-and-supplies/sterilization-medical-devices
37. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Final rule announcement — emissions reductions for ethylene oxide sterilizers. 2024. https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-announces-final-rule-slash-toxic-emissions-ethylene-oxide-and-reduce-cancer-risk
38. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Proposed reconsideration of 2024 commercial sterilizer rule. 2026. https://www.epa.gov/ethylene-oxide/proposed-reconsideration-2024-commercial-sterilizer-rule
39. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. What is a Medical Device Recall? https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/medical-device-recalls-and-early-alerts/what-medical-device-recall
40. iShares. iShares U.S. Medical Devices ETF (IHI). https://www.ishares.com/us/products/239516/ishares-core-msi-eafae-etf
41. State Street Global Advisors. SPDR S&P Health Care Equipment ETF (XHE) fact sheet. 2026. https://www.ssga.com/library-content/products/factsheets/etfs/us/factsheet-us-en-xhe.pdf