And so we’re seeing early success in applying those same tools. We still need to build out more information for patients. In pain, it is more complex than in a reconstruction. If you’re a woman, you have a mastectomy, you know you have a mastectomy and are thinking about reconstruction in pain, you know you have pain, but you don’t know that it’s a neuroma pain. And so we have added some tools to help those patients determine do they have neuroma pain and are they an appropriate potential surgical candidate with, of course, the final decision always being made by the health care practitioner. And so we’re going to continue to build out those tools this year, but we think that we can help activate these patients, again, to be good stewards of their own care.
Ross Osborn: Great. Thank you for taking my questions.
Operator: Our next question comes from the line of Dave Turkaly with JMP Securities. Please proceed with your questions.
Dave Turkaly: Great. Good morning.
Karen Zaderej: Hey, Dave.
Dave Turkaly: Karen, the meta analysis that you talked about that large review. Who actually did that? And where was that published?
Karen Zaderej: Its published – its e-published in PRS. It’s a group of independent authors who actually wrote it, but they did this, again, deep review of the data and prepared a very solid analysis of nerve repair across autograft, allograft and conduits. So we’re very excited to see the data. And it was e-published at the end of December. It will be in print in one of the coming journals. It’s actually not been out in the – so PRS is plastic and reconstructive surgery.
Dave Turkaly: Great. Thank you for that. I know people have asked a little bit about the guidance and I was looking at the sort of rep productivity. And I was wondering if you had any color or comments there in terms of kind of where your average folks are today and sort of where you think they can go? Is there still room for that to expand?
Pete Mariani: Yes. No, we’re seeing that rep productivity has – it’s now over about $1.1 million per rep. And we’ve always said we’ve got reps that do $2 million a year and maybe a little bit more. And we – as of rep is getting close to $2 million, that’s when we split those territories and bring additional resources in to cover those hospitals. So we think that there’s plenty of opportunity for rep productivity to go from $1.1 billion up to $1.3 million, $1.5 million plus on average as we continue to drive deeper into these accounts. Now that’s not all this year, obviously. But over time, we’re going to increase rep productivity, we think, fairly solidly. And then as we move up the curve from 1.1 to 1.2 to 1.3, we’ll continue to add more reps, and we’ll do so in a way that allows us to not only drive additional rep growth but continue to drive rep productivity growth.
And so we think we’ve got a lot of opportunity with rep productivity to be the primary driver of growth. And we certainly believe we’re still in the very early stages of growth even in our best core accounts to continue to bring in additional surgeons within those accounts across our applications.
Dave Turkaly: Thank you for that. And one last one for me, maybe for Karen. The timing of the next-gen Avance product, I think you said is later this year. But I guess, would that be sort of like used across all indications or will it be designed more specifically for one? Or I guess any color or thoughts on timing and what might be new about it, if you can elaborate. Thank you.
Karen Zaderej: So this is – you’re asking specifically about next-gen Avance?
Dave Turkaly: Yes. Yes.
