% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Novadaq Technologies Inc. Message Board

splaintome 70 posts  |  Last Activity: 5 hours ago Member since: Feb 20, 2010
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • splaintome splaintome 5 hours ago Flag

    No Steve,

    I wasn't trying to argue. I was simply pointing out the that those items were not characteristisc of the ALF. Surgibot....maybe. It was others who did not want to hear the truth and insisted that they were correct.

    So now that we have that settled, let's discuss some of the other topics that you have mentioned.

    "The seating is much more comfortable, and surgeon is able to communicate easier with team"

    That could possibly be an advantage but I'm not so sure. The da Vinci console was ergonomically designed that way for a reason - kind of like those massage stations that you see at the airport. I have also seen a video of the surgeon sitting at the ALF console. In order to zoom in/out the view, the surgeon has to lean forwards or backwards.. How does this work if he/she wants to zoom way in or out? In my opinion, most surgeons have been self trained to remain fairly steady during an operation - not bobbing and weaving like Muhammad Ali.

    "Most tools are reusable. DaVinci most are disposable, and must be replaced after each use."

    Well, there is a reason for that as well and it has to do with infections. ISRG does not create one-use instruments simply to make more money. They do it to ensure the integrity of the surgery and thus the patient. Costs per infection can range from $11,000 - $35,000 and could easily wipe out any cost savings for reusable instruments. I myself, would gladly pay the extra out-of-pocket expense to ensure that the instruments that the surgeon used on me were not used inside someone else's cancer ridden body.

  • splaintome splaintome 22 hours ago Flag


    As I explained before, both ALF-X and da Vinci have basically the same operating room layout - a patient cart surrounded by operating controls (arms) and the separate surgeon console. Explain to me how a surgeon sitting at the ALF-X console is any different than a surgeon sitting at the da Vinci console? In other words, if a surgeon sitting at the ALF-X console can be scrubbed in what would prevent the same for the da Vinci surgeon?

    "and being in the actual room tells me he is ready to go."

    Look at this picture and tell me what you see:

    If you look at the picture you will see the da Vinci surgeon sitting in the same room about 10 feet away from the patient.

  • splaintome splaintome 22 hours ago Flag

    "PS please stop talking about Surgi, as it just muddles the picture"

    That's way too funny! I'm simply trying to clarify the picture that you all have already mangled. You all are the only ones talking about the Surgi and you don't even realize it . I'll make you a deal...I'll stop talking about the Surgi when you guys stop confusing Surgi "features" with the ALF-X - mainly:

    - It's 13/ the cost of da Vinci
    - It's a bedside unit
    - Surgeon is scrubbed in

  • splaintome splaintome May 23, 2016 4:27 PM Flag

    "Are you saying that with ALF the surgeon is not scrubbed in?"

    That's exactly what I'm saying. Why is this confusing? All of the sources that I read discuss "bedside" and "sterile field" as pertaining only to the Surgibot. The "mission" that you just quoted here does not address it being otherwise.

    I'll be happy to retract my statement if you can point me to a source that states otherwise. But my understanding is that, in this regard, it's no different than da Vinci. And, why should it be? If you look at images of both systems' setup in the operating room they both show the patient cart and a remote surgeon console.

  • splaintome splaintome May 23, 2016 2:30 PM Flag


    Sorry, but a couple of days ago you asked me why I was here. This is why:

    "The company is focused on the development and commercialization of the SurgiBot™ System, a robotically enhanced laparoscopic surgical platform that allows the surgeon to be patient-side within the sterile field."

    "The SurgiBot System is designed as a single-incision, patient-side robotic-assisted surgery system. It is designed to utilize flexible instruments through articulating channels controlled directly by the surgeon, with robotic assistance, while the surgeon remains patient-side within the sterile field."

    This does not apply to the ALF-X. It applies only to the SurgiBot which is not for sale in any market.

  • splaintome splaintome May 23, 2016 2:09 PM Flag

    "and your ill formed spiel"

    LOL - not only is the ALF-X 1/3 the it's a bedside unit (OMG). Do YOU call this "informative"?

  • splaintome splaintome May 23, 2016 1:48 PM Flag

    "To transition to a patient as Da Vinci's (away from the operating table) Is not conducive for immediate response to a surgeon that's bedside his patient. "

    Once again...totally clueless.

  • splaintome splaintome May 22, 2016 7:51 AM Flag


    "TransEnterix, Inc. rebutal by FDA"
    The proof is in the pudding sir. ALF-X has demonstrated that it is less invasive & is a product to consider for a more precise and manipulative device......It's like an addict not wanting to withdraw from drugs ( Da Vinci) from the symptoms that are rejecting common sense (TRXC) ALF-X IS the best also considering the cost factor which is 1/3 the cost of aforementioned sir. Good Day!

    The truth - from a couple of articles that I was easily able to Google:

    1)“SurgiBot will be approximately $800,000, with procedure cost about $1,600. ALF-X costs about $1.8 million, with procedure costs approximately $1,200.” He added that while the average selling price of a da Vinci system is about $1.5 million, "

    2) "The ALF-X is expected to cost about $2 million, comparable to the da Vinci system, Novarro said."

  • splaintome splaintome May 21, 2016 5:34 PM Flag

    I'm not the one that needs to know what the cost is compared da Vinci - you do!. I'm refuting your's and Y2K's claim (or lies) that the ALF-X's cost is approximately 1/3 of the da Vinci.

    I have done my homework but apparently you two lairs have not. I know what the ALF-X is estimated to cost and it's not even close to 1/3 as you two claim. ( I'm using the term, "estimated", because they have never actually sold a single unit in the years its been available.) What's more appalling and actually quite humorous is that you two imbecile "investors" don't even have a clue.

    How can you invest in a company and have absolutely no clue what the true estimated cost is?

    Stupid pumpers - give me a simple answer of what you think the rough cost of the ALF-X is?

    Anybody else want to let these two jokers off the hook because they definitely don't have the ba lls nor the knowledge to answer the question and would rather deflect the question.

  • splaintome splaintome May 21, 2016 3:53 PM Flag

    Sorry, but you need to look in the mirror and say to yourself, "It is I that was unprofessional for lying to my comrades on the TRXC message board".

    Provide us some substance of proof that the ALF-X is 1/3 the cost of da Vinci. Point us to any public reference to back up your statement. Until you do sir, you are the only liar and no one else.

  • splaintome splaintome May 21, 2016 3:46 PM Flag

    Normally, proper protocol would stipulate that you don't pose artificial facts. One of your false statements, among others, is that the ALF-X is 1/3 the cost of da Vinci. All I ask is that you point us to proof of your statement. Until you follow through on that that simple request, then we ALL have to assume that it is YOU standing in left field pulling at his pud.

    My bet is that you will stay content standing in left field...

  • Reply to


    by laxtiger May 20, 2016 10:37 AM
    splaintome splaintome May 20, 2016 1:18 PM Flag

    Special K,

    Since you keep insisting that I'm wrong and since you keep sticking your foot into your own mouth, please point us to a link where it mentions or shows that the ALF-X is 1/3 the cost of da Vinci. In other words, please state what you "know" the cost of ALF-X to be versus the da Vinci? Rough numbers are fine...

    PS: Even though I'm not one, what does being s short have to do with true facts?

  • splaintome splaintome May 20, 2016 1:10 PM Flag

    "I mean is it your altruistic nature?"


  • splaintome splaintome May 20, 2016 10:08 AM Flag

    "think were 4 years old"

    LOL - your responses surely do not convince me otherwise.

  • splaintome splaintome May 19, 2016 4:16 PM Flag

    Funny...All I see a bunch of pumpers who are so blinded by anxiety that they keep getting their "facts" totally confused - or, THEY are outright lying. The pumpers can't even keep track of what features make up the two devices that TRXC owns.

    (Disclaimer: I have no position in TRXC)

  • Reply to

    TransEnterix, Inc. rebutal by FDA

    by y2knkttx May 11, 2016 2:47 PM
    splaintome splaintome May 19, 2016 3:05 PM Flag

    LOL - and speaking of "clunker" and "monstrosity"... I just Googled images for the ALF-X. The thing is made up of four huge parts. Beside the surgeon console, it includes 3 patient side, one-armed components - with each individual component being about the size of da Vinci's one patient side component (which is an integrated four-armed unit) .

    Oh, and by the way, it sure doesn't look like the ALF-X's surgeon console behaves any differently than da Vinci's - meaning, it surely is not a "next to the patient" bed-side unit.

  • Reply to

    TransEnterix, Inc. rebutal by FDA

    by y2knkttx May 11, 2016 2:47 PM
    splaintome splaintome May 19, 2016 8:09 AM Flag

    Another confused pumper that doesn't have his facts straight.. Weighing in at ~ $1.7M for ALF-X, I don't see how that is 1/3 the cost of da Vinci.

    "How can you not benefit from a revolving camera so surgeons can see with more clarity which would yield to an efficient & less costly device like the "clunker" Da Vinci?. "

    I don't know the answer to that sir - maybe you should ask all of the European surgeons that have decided not to buy one over the past few years.

  • Reply to

    Not dead yet

    by newyorknick25 May 16, 2016 9:32 PM
    splaintome splaintome May 18, 2016 1:02 PM Flag

    "OK so I was just reading about the Stryker/Mako deal, and Mako is up 83%"

    Really? When do YOU think this transaction happened?

  • Reply to


    by kaisersose77 May 17, 2016 9:07 PM
    splaintome splaintome May 18, 2016 6:45 AM Flag

    "Part of his companionship."

    Money for companionship? You know, there's a term for that as well... :)

  • Reply to

    TransEnterix, Inc. rebutal by FDA

    by y2knkttx May 11, 2016 2:47 PM
    splaintome splaintome May 17, 2016 10:32 AM Flag

    " So you think ISRG strategy will be to drive TRXC out of biz, by undercutting them the whole way?"

    Absolutely. And as much as possible, ISRG is not going to let TRXC gain any traction - especially now that they are on the ropes with the FDA disapproval and burning more cash with little to no income.

    "Gee somewhere I think there is a law about that. I think that might be called a "Monopoly"

    I'm surmising that ISRG is substituting their older systems for this very reason. If they were to offer their high-end systems at heavily discounted prices, they may be accused of that very thing.

    "In fact it is about 60-70% cheaper to use per procedure."

    Being cheaper is not the only consideration. First of all, they need to consider the viability of the company. No hospital (administrator) l wants to be stranded with a expensive piece of equipment that they can no longer have serviced because the vendor is defunct. Also, ISRG has set the standard and most buyers will want to stay with the industry standard because that's what the experience robotic surgeons currently know and it helps their recruiting efforts. Finally, despite the "advantages" that you mention, there are considerably more advantages going in favor of the da Vinci and, besides their patents, they have exclusive rights to attractive third party technology that is locked in for years to come.

    "Don't you wish you bought ISRG at 2 bucks?"

    Although it may not be 2 bucks, there will be ample opportunity for me buy in the future if they prove to be a viable company - just as there was when I bought ISRG after they proved themselves.

9.83-0.11(-1.11%)1:43 PMEDT