Number of the day - 35% vs 50%

  

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/stevegbell_ottava-jnj-intuitive-share-7486436912996474880-UCg5/

 https://www.jnjmedtech.com/en-US/products/robotics/ottava-robotic-surgical-system/system/

 

"laim:
Smallest multi-port soft-tissue robotic system footprint: The novel architecture integrates robotic arms into the OR table and occupies 30–50% less space than traditional boom- and cart-mounted systems,1* creating additional room for surgeons and clinical teams to move, communicate, and care for patients, with the potential to support more streamlined clinical workflows and experiences.

So I've put that to the test with some modelling based on what is publicly available - so take it as estimates. but the answer:

YES - Floorspace wise my calculations validate a 35% footprint vs Intuitivetive DV5 (probably 50% vs Xi because of extra tower??)

NO - My calculations say that Ottava has 25% plus more "airspace" bedside occupancy - as it is a symmetrical deployment. DV5 takes up one side of the bed asymmetrically.

So the argument is going to be - "do we care more about floor space of airspace?"

Yet to be determined. And bedside and OR teams will tell us.
One final point - Storage space in ASCs is golden (heard that this week). One key thing I like about the Ottava is that it seems undeniable that if the bed is being used for a regular procedure then you only store a console and a tower (unless the tower is being used in a manual lap procedure). The bed is "self stored" inside the OR by being.... the bed.
So I think Ottava wins in ASCs and small ORs on storage, rather than the peri-operative dimensions and smaller footprint when being used. Thought?

This is just as I start to dissect out the pros and cons.... give me some time."