"I hope you're not talking about ALF not getting FDA approval....If the "Big Boys" did not bail after Surgi rejection why would they bail now?"
No, I was referring to the Surgi denial. If I was scrutinizing my fund performance, I would wonder why my fund manager was still holding on to the position after that denial. Also, I'm not sure what your definition of "bail" is but it's my opinion that the majority of sellers have been the "big boys" that have taken it from ~$5 in April down to the current $1.20+-.
""Do you know how long it took ISRG to move their first unit?"
No, because I bought a while after it was proven and obvious that they were going to be able to sell the da Vinci.
Just curious...what are you going to do if there are no ALF sales this quarter? ISRG may take a small hit in sales if there was a delay because of the BREXIT fiasco but TRXC will be much more impacted because that is their one and only market at the moment.
I would surmise that the "big guys" are the first to pull out due to the fact that they are not as emotionally involved as the typical retail investor and they don't necessarily want to appear as a "bag holder" on a stock that already failed to get FDA approval.
I've actually gotten some of my best stock tips via mbs. The trick is to identify individuals that are not trying to bs others by either pumping a stock they own or bashing a stock in which they are short.
The main problem for most investors is lack of self discipline and becoming too emotionally attached to a stock that they own. Emotionally attached investors will naturally seek out like-minded mb posters that support that emotional attachment. However, investors should continuously reevaluate their positions to make sure their original DD still matches current market conditions and/or company movements in the market.
Yes. That helps and it answers my question.
As a followup: So it appears that the XI is quite a bit more efficient than the prior versions yet obviously more expensive. But given its higher efficiency, do you see it as being less expensive in the long run if you're able to shave off the amount OT such as in your examples above?
If so, where would those savings go? In other words, If the XI performed procedures on average 30% more efficiently, would it cost the patient less, the hospital less, or split somewhere in between?
As far as the bed is concerned, would not that be a long term cost savings as well if you can shave off precious minutes from not having to undock from the patient? Or, is that typically a rare occurrence?
Thanks for your answers. But I don't think you answered my question of why you would welcome competition for da Vinci. In other words, given all of your experience with the platform. I would imagine that you feel that your future is quite comfortable and set considering you're working with the premier system at the moment.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for competition, but it seems that something is lacking with da Vince if you are encouraging competition to arise. Or, is it that you would simply like to see a platform that services a broader spectrum of indications?
What specifically is it between the two versions that accounts for the decrease in time?
Also, at one point here you mentioned that you were in favor of competition for da Vinci. I'm going to assume that the main driver of your statement is pushing for lower capital costs. If that assumption is correct, then I'm also going to assume that you play a part in the decision making for acquisition of large cap equipment.
Therefore, what I wanted to ask you is to clarify your view and whether or not you think that the da Vinci represents a good overall value - given what it provides for the surgeon and patient? Or, do most RAS surgeons and techs consider it a "loss leader" for hospitals because it brings in the patients?
On a side note, I also own some NVDQ (firefly for da Vinci). If you have experience with it, what is your opinion about the technology? Also, HRC (da Vinci bed) as well?
Not trying to "bash" but I wonder if it's been sitting in Gemelli for over 3 years because even the recent case studies are still not proving very attractive for ALF-X:
"From October 2013 to May 2015, 203 women underwent TELELAP-ALF X (Group 1) or standard laparoscopic (Group 2) total hysterectomy were enrolled.
The median OT was 147 minutes in the Group 1 (ALF X) and 80 minutes in the Group 2 (Lap)
Procedures were successfully performed without conversion in 94.3% of cases in the Group 1 (ALF-X) and 0 conversions in the Group 2 (Lap).
Early postoperative pain was significantly lower in the Group 2 (Lap) with respect to the Group 1 (ALF-X)."
Conclusion: Almost twice as long to perform the operation, 6 percent conversions versus 0 , and significantly more pain.
"...Advises Investors With Losses In Excess of $100,000 to Contact the Firm."
Special K's definition of success is to be chosen lead plaintiff...
"Now that Surgibot got the axe..."
How does one go about getting details on the nature of an FDA denial? Is relying on an explanation from the company's management the only avenue for clarity or are there public sources that summarize the reasons?
"Spain, was the procedure a retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for tumor staging or did it include a hysterectomy?"
Telelap ALF-X vs Standard Laparoscopy for the Treatment of Early-Stage Endometrial Cancer: A Single-Institution Retrospective Cohort Study - the study is listed on TRXC's website. Seems like the same ALF team that has performed many of the other studies
Here's a similar (?) study with da Vinci back in 2009:
In another study, 43 patients with clinical stage I endometrial cancer underwent staging using the da Vinci Surgical System and were compared with a historical cohort of patients who underwent laparoscopic hysterectomy with staging. The average QI was 32.8 for the robotic cohort vs 29.2 in the laparoscopic cohort (P = .008). There were significantly more nodes recovered in the robotically staged patients (29.8 vs 23.2; P = .004). The mean blood loss in the robotic group was 63 mL (range 25 to 300 mL), with 45% of patients having no measurable blood loss compared with 142 mL (50 to 700 mL) in the laparoscopy group (P = .0001). Mean operative time was 163 minutes compared with 213 (P = .002). Hospital stay was 1.0 vs 1.2 days (P = .04). Major complications occurred in 4.6% of the robotic group and in 12.8% in the laparoscopy group. These early experiences demonstrate feasibility of applying robotics to gynecologic cancer staging.
"Which robot do you think doctors in Europe are going to buy when they look at these two choices and the overall cost? "
Um...the same one they've been buying since ALF got it's CE mark years ago...
"One ALF-X sale represents the same revenue of ~4 SurgiBots."
Really? Why does this phrase keep coming up? That's only because it's at least 4 times the size and probably costs at LEAST 4 times as much to manufacture. I would venture a guess and say that's there is probably more margin made on selling a Surgi vs an ALF - but that's a moot point isn't it...
WHEN You Address SPECIAL K You Have To At Least Capitalize Each WORD Or Else He Can't Read It ...Then End It With The Exclamations!!! Also, Throw In A Couple OF "LOSErs" or "SCuMBa??s To Emphasize Your Seriousness AND Logic.
Even if the ALF-X was not for sale for those years since approval - the main question is WHY was it not for sale? Typically, small companies that have gone through all of the trials and expense of obtaining CE approval simply cannot afford to sit on million dollar equipment in this manner for this length of time. This tells me that even they don't think the product is up to snuff.
This line of thought may be corroborated by this study performed as recently as this past November. I'll let you draw your own conclusions but do pay attention to the large difference in operative time between the two groups and the conversions:
In the ALF-X group, the median operative time was 128 minutes (range, 69–260 minutes) for subgroup 1 and 193 minutes (range, 129–290 minutes) for subgroup 2. In the laparoscopic group, the median operative time was 82 minutes (range, 25–180 minutes) in subgroup 1 and 104 minutes (range, 36–160 minutes) in subgroup 2. The difference in operative time between subgroups was statistically significant in both the ALF-X and laparoscopic groups (p = .000). In subgroup 1 of the ALF-X group, there was 1 conversion to standard laparoscopy (2.3%) and 2 conversions to laparotomy (4.7%) (p = .234). No conversions to laparotomy occurred in the laparoscopic group. Postoperative complications included 1 case of pelvic hematoma (2.3%) in subgroup 1 of the ALF-X group and 1 case of subocclusion and 1 case of pulmonary edema (4.3%) in subgroup 1 of the laparoscopic group.
Based on operative outcomes and complication rates, our results suggest that the Telelap ALF-X approach is feasible and safe for endometrial cancer staging; however, further studies are needed to definitively assess the role of Telelap ALF-X early-stage endometrial cancer staging.
That's odd because you said it only about 3 hours ago...
"Hell, how could ALF been introduced into USA with no FDA approval? C'mon man you're reaching for straws. It only has CE mark for Europe. You're really losing credibility now."
Also, one man's "bias" is another man's "opinion". Just like myself, Bent has stated that he has no position in TRXC. Heck, he doesn't even have a position in ISRG like I do so I'm not sure why you think he is biased vs simply stating his opinion.
And talking about "cherry picking"...what Bent said about "introduced" has nothing to do with being FDA approved. It could simply mean; toured and demoed, presented at Sages, etc.
"You're really losing credibility now."
Don't you think that's a little uncalled for. Bent has politely and directly answered most of your questions and you've had many. It would behoove this board to show the same respect in order to gain the necessary information, insight and knowledge surrounding your investment here.
Bent has an opinion and so does mmarcusmd. Just because one opinion aligns more with your position does not mean the other is not valuable in its own right.
Currently, you have two very knowledgeable people with robotic surgery experience whereas just a few days ago you had none. For everyone's benefit, it's good to let both sides weigh in without resorting to harassing innuendos.just because you don't agree with the one opinion.
Nah Ranger...Special K is one of those smart dogs where I like to use my laser pointer, run it across the floor real quick and then watch him bump his head into the wall.
My name is Kaiser and I like to pump and deflect when people post logic. I do this so I can try and recoup the money I poured into this stock. If I pump real loud I'm sure I can make the stock go up and everyone will then like me for my persuasive pumping skills.
(Yeah...because real investors would be too stupid to sell their college fund at all time highs and wait for TRXC to take over the market with their "superior" technology. BTW, where can I buy one of those special TRXC products you mentioned - a Surgi or Alf-X?)
See Steve...like I said the pumpers will pump and deflect until the chickens come home to roost - no matter how much logic and facts you throw at them.
K - is very close to breaking down mentally right in front of the whole audience...
He's touting the superiority of something that is either not on the market (refused) or has not sold a single unit in several years while it;s been available on the market.