Market potentials of robotic systems in medical science: analysis of the Avatera robotic system

Abstract

Purpose To evaluate the potential opportunities and possible competitiveness of Avatera robotic system (ARS) (Avateramedical, Germany), and perform predictive cost-analysis for its implementation and dissemination. Material and methods Our study employed a projective quantitative research design. SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) analysis was used to map ARS internal competencies towards external contexts, and potential opportunities and risks in the robotic market. The ARS purchase and procedural costs were evaluated in two different scenarios. Results In the first scenario, setting the purchase cost of the Avatera at around $1.3–1.5 million, a total $400 procedural cost reduction compared to the RAS performed with the da Vinci Xi can be calculated. In the second scenario, with a purchase cos of the ARS of $700.000–800.000 and considering a 5-year period with an annual ARS volume of 500 procedures, only an additional $300 will be attributed to the robot itself. Our projections revealed that for an effective competition the purchase cost of ARS should range between $700.000 and $800.000 during the initial phase of market entry. The marketing strategy of the ARS should be oriented towards countries without any robotic system in operational use, followed by countries where the competition intensity in the marketplace is low. Conclusion The introduction of new robotic systems will greatly affect and reshape the market of robotic surgery. The ARS has all the technical capacity ensuring the performance of high-quality surgical procedures. A fast spread and implementation of the ARS could be expected should the purchase and maintenance costs be kept low.

Last Resort from Nursing Shortage? Comparative Cost Analysis of Open vs. Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomies with a Focus on the Costs of Nursing Care

“…Process optimization of robotic partial nephrectomy is certainly not complete against the background of retroperitoneoscopic procedures [ 33 ] or potential physician assistants for bedside assistance. With new competitors in the field, such as the HUGO ® RAS system (Medtronic, Dublin, Ireland), the costs for robotic systems might continue to decrease in the future [ 34 , 35 ]. In addition, the German aG-DRG reimbursement system is based on cost data from so-called “costing hospitals” which increasingly perform robotic surgery themselves—which is why the reimbursement is expected to continue to increase, as it has significantly risen in recent years for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy [ 36 ].…”

An introductory review of robotically assisted surgical systems

“…Very recently, with the acquisition of an academic spinoff FORWARDttc, the company is improving its surgical system by integrating experiences in image processing, artificial intelligence, VR and cloud computing 22 . The market debut is nearby.…”

Technological Advancements in Uterus Transplantation

“…The last 2 decades have seen a steady evolution in robotic surgery, after the approval in 2000 of robotic pioneer Intuitive's Da Vinci robotic system, 7 and subsequent robotic systems and platforms that continue to be developed. 8 Traditional laparoscopic surgery is limited by 2-dimensional camera visualization, limited instrument range of motion, and ergonomic challenges. 9 Robotic surgery has enabled a minimally invasive surgery (MIS) environment offering excellent stereoscopic visualization through high resolution 3-dimensional panoramic views, jointwristed instrumentation with improved ergonomics, 10 tremor control and motion scaling, 9 all of which allow intricate visualization and delicate manipulation of tissues.…”

“…The last 2 decades have seen a steady evolution in robotic surgery, after the approval in 2000 of robotic pioneer Intuitive’s Da Vinci robotic system,7 and subsequent robotic systems and platforms that continue to be developed 8. Traditional laparoscopic surgery is limited by 2-dimensional camera visualization, limited instrument range of motion, and ergonomic challenges 9.…”