Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
These are fun posts to read. I'll throw mine out there too. I'm still a far way off from retirement - even at a $10 pps sell. I'm in this for the long run but to help 66 with his averages, please count me in at $10.
we are not anywhere.
you are thanking people?
I've said before that we really may owe the prior management team more genuine thanks as well. Look at the Amadeus design and think about how that could possibly not infringe on an ISRG patent somehow, as well as having very little to differentiate it from da Vinci to make it desirable, other than pricing. SPORT is a design revolution for robotic surgery, but to get there, the old management team had to throw away years of hard work and start largely from scratch. It must have been the most difficult decision they ever had to make in their lives, but we stand to reap great rewards now due to that toughest decision of theirs.
When we go to Vegas, I would suggest we consider inviting Dr. Fowler and Mr. Hargrove at a minimum, and show them the genuine appreciation they really do deserve. I agree they may have gotten in a little over their heads by last summer when the business had to make the necessary transformations out of product development and into more of a business development phase. But without them and their insightful design, we wouldn't be going to Vegas at all.
36y.o, Been in this for 5 years, 178,000 shares purchased from .20- $2.20.
$5 comes close to paying off house, $10 let's me decide what I'd "like" to do with my life...
Won't complain with either.
Perhaps if not for the incompetence of the previous management we may never have had this given to us
So in the end. When it does go up. Maybe we should be thanking them for their incompetence. Lol
To me, about the only benefit of a buyout is investment risk mitigation, but I think Titan has already done a great job of project risk mitigation, and seem to be on a path which will continue that strategy. My personal preference is still for Titan to go it alone because I think that will maximize our ultimate returns, but I also recognize the value of risk-free money. At $10/share, I retire immediately. At $5/share, I have a couple years to go.
That is the beauty of this and the gift which has been given to all of us.
.10 was a god send. There are few opportunities that come along like this.
This is a real robot. And it will do well. And we should all be very thankful that we have been given this opportunity
I for one am very glad it went to .10
Won’t get that again
It all seems like wishful thinking to me. Maybe a lottery ticket?
Realistically this is still a penny stock.
But fundamentally I don’t disagree and think the potential for this company is significant.
I would think that if not before FDA, then shortly thereafter. If Titan builds momentum quickly, they are building value quickly and making a buyout much more expensive. Also, nobody really wants to go through a re-branding process; once units are out there in the field with the Titan name, does a buying organization want to replace them, re-label them... there are additional approvals for labels on a medical device, etc.
The tally so far is probably about where I would have expected. 13 contributors so far. Most gave a range, for which I took the mean value (if you said 8 to 10, I'm using 9 for your value). Others said things like anything over 5, so I'm calling it 5. The sum of these 13 values is 94.25, so the average is 7.25. If we were to act as a unified group, everyone would vote yes on a buyout of $7.25 per share. Given appx. 400M shares outstanding with warrants, that's $2.9B.
When we did the prior exercise to see how many shares we had cumulatively, we had 50 contributors, and there have been a number of new posters here since then. I'll keep tallying the numbers if more people respond.
It's pure speculation but assuming the plan by management is to be bought out. What type time frame are we looking it after FDA approval of a buyout happening? Could it drag on for years before they are bought out, or do you expect it to happen relatively quick after FDA approval or even FDA submission?
I think with future potential growing every year in this industry, and the fact that ISRG is at a 40Billion valuation, we should look at up to 10% of ISRG as a goal from the start. Within 5-10 years a company using SPORT will be at a 40Billion world wide valuation potentially. I think that is worth 4Billion currently, and with the current SO/Warrants, that is PPS of 10. If we have the luck of a couple suiters competing, this could happen... If they wait until FDA approval, it might be close to that whether they like it or not (given we are on a major exchange/NASDAQ). Perhaps, I dream but a 6-10PPS would seem realistic. I would personally like 8 or above...
You know it. At $5-$6/share I'm paying everything off and still being able to put over $250,000 (post income taxes) in the bank. I don't know too many 42 year old married couples (with young kids) who are in that position.
Give me $5-6 and I'd be very satisfied. Taking Titan into Production and Sales is a massive, capital intense undertaking. I don't expect McNally has any interest there, the company will be sold to the highest bidder IMO.
Love to hear from industry folks like yourself. Thank you for your thoughts!
I too am hopeful this is an early retirement investment for me. I have 1/4 of the shares you own, soon to be about 1/3, but I am only 35. My wife and I own a small business as well, and I am hopeful the sale of that as well as this stock sets us up for early retirement around age 45-50. Then I can get a part time gig I enjoy to keep medical benefits, play a bunch of golf and manage my portfolio for additional retirement income.
Sorry, day dreaming a little right now... Let's go Titan!!
Male. 63. . Looking to retire well with this. And not 5 years from now
Many years of buying. Loaded up substantially at .10
Never sold one share. I am convinced it’s a winner. Have been for years.
The management has to align institutional investors so that when the company does a reverse split to get the stock on the nasdaq there is support for the price. All of the buying now is from people who are like myself and others on this message board. Institutions are not allowed to invest in pink sheet companies as part of their bylaws.
If there is success with the platform, the management will be able to align investors to support a reverse split. This will take at least 6 months after the company gets the platform submitted to the FDA.
This is a good time to invest for the new investor as well as lowering your average cost to the long term investor.
I have purchased 250,000 shares since the low of ten cents.
Still high risk but starting to see some light at the end of the tunnel.
1.8M shares??? Dude, you ROCK! (My apologies if you are female, in which case I'll try "Dudette, you ROCK!)
Very impressive position regardless of gender!
1,776,002
I would be happy with 5 per share. Anything more than that is gravy for me
We will. But it is fun and exciting to consider the possibilities and get an understanding on what everyone thinks and/or desires from their investment here.
Exactly! And I am in the same boat as you, I would be very happy with $7.5-$12.5 per share buyout if considering 400M total O/S shares. Low end of that range now of course and higher end of that range as we continue to chug along hitting milestones and getting positive feedback from surgeons at each of the 3 sites.
Mac needs to insure there is a bidding war as one company cannot get us on the cheap!
It would be interesting to start tallying these response 66 and also get an update on current share count, so we know where we stand from a united Titan investor group. I am up to 400,000 shares and just trimmed a few positions to add another 100,000 shares (waiting to see if we get a minor pullback on silent news over the next week or so).
Which is why I think your $10/share is very realistic. By the time SPORT gets FDA approved the demand and hype around it should be through the roof.
I'm not speaking for everyone, but McNally's track record with building company value then selling leads me to believe that is the reason they hired him and it has been the plan the entire time.
Also, you've got people invested who are at different stages of life. You've got some investors who can't wait another 10 years to cash in. They'll either be dead or to a point with their age/health they can't enjoy the fruits of their investment. I'm 42 and even I don't want to wait 10 more years to cash in. I'd rather make a nice mint at 42 and be able to put my wife and I in a position to do things at 42, that if we wait until we're in our 50's or older we won't be able to.
Mr. McNally has a history of getting products to the marketplace first, then getting the company sold at maximum value.
At $5, I'd feel like we could have gotten more. At $10, I'd feel over-benefitted.
So $6 to $8 sounds fine to me.
But I'm happy owning the stock. I would sell because a buy-out forces us to sell our shares (or swap for shares in a very different kind of company). Selling my shares would need to be the best scenario among a range of scenarios.
Along with that, are most people figuring that present management is skilled enough to take us to a buy-out, but not skilled enough so they can manage it as a mature company?
I'm not selling anytime soon. (Planning to hold for at least 6 more years if neccessary) If a vote is on the table for 2017/2018 in terms of PPS I would say no less than $6.50 to $8 per share.
I'd like to get no less than $6/share. But I agree that it would be nice to get multiple companies at the bidding table to drive up the price.
pmontx, 2018 it pretty close now!
You say $5 now but more later... Are there any specific upcoming milestones that will drive your target price higher? News of successful procedures coming out of the two new training centers, for example? Or specific published milestones being achieved?
Here's the list from the Short Form Prospectus, below. My personal take is that most of these should be fairly easy to achieve given the stated functionality of the device from the Nicholson surgeons. The tedium comes in the documentation for the regulatory filings, but with proper reviews before submission and working with the agencies in advance as they had been doing, risk should be relatively low. With the right QA team in place, I would not be surprised to see a few more milestones announced as completed ahead of schedule.
Quick list of Milestones:
Q3: Complete and verify system design
architecture, including performance testing in
laboratory environment and design of
surgeon simulation training modules
- Implement design changes and retest
system and subsystems
- Update Design History File and
documentation for relevant modules of
Company Quality Management
Systems (“QMS”)
- Complete initial requirements and
architecture for surgeon simulation
software and training program design,
as required in preparation for FDA
submittal
Q4: Verify system performance in pre-clinical
(live animal labs, swine), while establishing
clear regulatory pathways for US and Europe
- Complete and report on pre-clinical
live animal (swine) studies at strategic
facilities in US and Europe
- Confirm FDA and CE Mark pathways
in coordination with regulatory
authorities
Q1 '18: Complete software development, system
design and update Design History File for
regulatory filing applications
Q2 '18: Verify production system operation with
clinical experts under rigorous formal
(summative) human factors evaluation under
simulated robotic manipulation exercises, and
exercise completed surgeon simulation
software and training program
Q3 '18: Complete and document pre-clinical live
animal (swine) surgery studies that are
representative of anticipated human surgeries
for FDA submittal
Q4 '18: Prepare and submit 510(k) application to
FDA and prepare technical file for CE Mark
and submit to European Notified Body
- Publish white papers on pre-clinical
studies containing evidence of system
performance in live animal surgeries
that are representative of anticipated
human surgeries
H1 '19: Anticipated receipt of FDA 510(k) clearance
and CE Mark
I think things have changed. Clearly there is new interest in Titan.
66 Thank you for continuing to be this boards Rock (no dig intended!) Give me $5 and i can get on with my life!! Wouldn't this be well north of a $5 value post 511k?
At 400M outstanding I want $8 per
Anywhere between $5-10 I would vote yes.
Like your note once again Mustang.
However, there are more risks with Titan and SPORT that should be considered and is always a concern. Concerns of the testing not working as well as anticipated, and safety/malpractice issues or possible patent infringement, or need to implement new features to SPORT yet the patent is already created. Also, concerns of growing competition with the likes of VERB or Mazor robotics, etc.. But, the many many positives are certainly there to (especially since McNally took over and created a structured path - like saying there will be 3 Sites testing SPORT - and actually making it happen with totally qualified sites).
But for me I'm still concerned about the unknown, so I lead to a bird in hand is worth 2 in the bush...Ha. I would take $5 in 2017, maybe not in 2018.
Anyway, to be clear I'm not selling....
Should I track everyone's responses and then do some averaging to see where we stand as a group? Everyone would certainly have the right to vote their own conscience, but we might be more influential as a like-minded group if we have a target in mind and agree to vote accordingly. We would just need to ensure everyone provides their input.
When we were gauging our potential influence as a group of shareholders several months back, there were 188M shares outstanding, and we iHubbers as a group (those who reported in) held around 6% of them. I have increased my position by about 30% since then and I think most people here did as well if they could, plus we seem to have a fair number of new contributors here since then as well. There are more outstanding share now, but it is not unreasonable to think that between our increases in holdings plus the newer contributors, we could be sitting on over 10% of the company. If we band together, we might have more voting influence than Longtai! (They have warrants as well, but I don't think warrants represent voting shares if they aren't exercised... maybe a good reason for warrant holders to exercise sooner rather than later; they can improve their voting power if a buyout offer comes around quickly.)
IITF, I think warrants would still be exercisable for a buyout so I estimated 400M shares; therefore $2B would be $5/share.
at this share count?
I would like to see us sell at a $2B valuation post 510k. That puts the PPS at just under 10 bucks. I'd settle for an earlier buyout at 6-7, which would still make my 5+ year affair with Titan well worth the time.
I would like $10+ but my minimum is $8
If Titan had "build and buy" all over it, we would never be hurting for funding the way we have been on occasion. It does seem to be the perfect company for that acquisition model, but it doesn't seem to be happening, at least not yet.
As for a buyout scenario, we need to start thinking a bit more seriously about what price level we want or need. When adding warrants to outstanding shares, we are looking at somewhere around 400M shares total? If so, a $2B buyout would get us $5/share. Is that sufficient? Certainly compared to today's PPS levels, it sounds outstanding, but does that achieve our individual financial goals regarding this stock? Were we hoping for two to four times that much in the next 5 years or so? Or are we still bitter enough about the company's history that we would take $2 just to be done with the whole thing?
We may want to discuss this a bit here on the board to get a feel for where everyone stands, because if an offer comes around, I assume shareholders get to vote on it. We each need to think about how much we would be willing to accept for a Yes vote on a buyout. I'm closer to $10/share, or $4B before I would jump on it that quickly. We will want to consider timing with regard to milestones and project timelines - how close are we to FDA filing or approval by then? Have there been any hiccups which represent risk, or has it been smooth sailing with the new team so the perception of risk is minimal? For some folks, who the buyer is might affect their decision as well (I'm just gonna be a "Show me the money" guy if it happens; I don't care who is paying as long as they pay enough).
The article pointed out that there is a shortage of good target companies in med tech right now, so one offer could easily be the first of a bidding war, given the impact SPORT is expected to have on the robotic surgery marketplace. Just another thing to keep in mind. We might not want to jump too quickly on the first offer; they need to give other potential buyers time to formulate a competing offer if they want.
Maybe it's premature, or maybe now is a good time to start thinking about this, because when it hits, it will be mostly out of the blue. With the propensity for information to be leaked with this stock (prices always spike just before good news), any time we see a healthy jump for no apparent reason means something is coming, and any time we get the "random" spike, it could be a buyout offer causing it.
I think it might be time to start the dialog amongst ourselves to see where we stand as a group, and maybe be able to leverage our collective voting power to better meet everyone's long term objectives with this investment. I think we are in a good position for some strong bargaining if it is going to happen. And if it doesn't happen, we are still in a great place and moving in the right direction.
All big brother has to do is buy stock in large volumes at the right times to push-up price into the warrants. That should keep lights on and Titan fed. 9 mil shares traded in one day? Is this possibly happening. Wouldn’t this be the safest and cheapest way for Big to give Titan money. If they buy us they own the stock
ST after reading that article it really makes one wonder about the whole LongTai cash infusion. It sure was perfect timing to keep the lights on at the R&D facility. When investors on here started asking questions it was immediately swept right under the rug. I think Rocko might have been right all along
!!! I knew there was something updated on morningstar on the 9th. Morningstar officially shows TITXF as "undervalued" !!!
This is a link to the morningstar pdf analysis:
http://tinyurl.com/y9yyw3xy
Gotta say I think your right...Billions!
Agreed and based on the feedback thus far, this will be sold for billions.
I will. And thank you for all you do for this company. You are an asset to TMD !!
Did you read the article? It will explain the term. I suggest you read it.
Partner and buyer two different things. Don’t erase lol
Titan has "build and buy" written all over it. It is far enough along to see how impressive the technology is yet still needs funding to get to the finish line. Relatively low risk for the partner at this stage.
Disruptive Dynamics in Healthcare and the Impact on Medtech
The evolution of the U.S. healthcare industry has been a matter of both regulatory change principally catalyzed by the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and its imperative to shift the industry's business incentives from ?volume to value" in addition to transformation compelled by macro-trends like the rapid advancement of technology and big data and their increasing accessibility to individual consumers. The impact on medical device, or medtech, companies is multifold: they are experiencing the pressure of reimbursement cuts indirectly through interactions with their customers, and they are also witnessing out-of-industry companies like Apple and Google testing capabilities in the traditional medtech domain.
Consolidation between and among payers and providers, who represent key customers of medtech, has contributed to parallel consolidation trends among device companies. Greg Davis notes that medtech companies have observed intense provider consolidation and reacted accordingly: ?Medtech companies are continuing to consolidate at a rapid pace, making a scale and size play. Especially as payers and providers grow more consolidated, this approach helps the medtech players remain at the negotiating table, by enabling them to talk about a wider range of products." Moreover, Rick Anderson points out that device companies, particularly those in commodity categories, are ?facing tremendous pricing pressure" from payers and providers, and have reacted by leveraging acquisitions in an effort to, ?get too big to ignore they want to ensure that the payers and health systems and integrated delivery networks have to pay attention to them."
The shift in traditional purchasing dynamics for devices has also impacted how medtech companies approach selling, as they increasingly need to engage a larger stakeholder group and acknowledge the emerging emphasis on value. According to Davis: ?for decades, the med device industry has been focused on the physician as the key decision maker. But now many physicians are employed by hospitals; while they're still at that negotiating table, they're only a single voice at the table today." Additionally, medtech companies are responding to the needs and preferences articulated by their customer base and regulators by increasingly considering broader contracting arrangements that cover larger product sets and reflect the emphasis on value and risk-sharing that is ubiquitous today among payers and providers. Davis says that device companies are expressing ?interest in getting into the services side of the business; they're talking about developing more complete packages that might mean they get paid based on the continuum of care, rather than for a particular implant or other device."
That said, Rick Anderson suggests that there's an element of dissonance between what many medtech companies communicate publicly versus carry out in day-to-day business operations: ?They're saying all the right things and claim to be figuring out population health, but the absolute truth is that most are really doing nothing about it in fact, if they were really to enable population health initiatives, it would disrupt their business model; having to deal with things like risk-sharing would be inconsistent with how they sell their products."
Medtech companies' lack of substantive action on the population health front has facilitated the entrance of out-of-industry players like IBM and Alphabet (Exhibit 1), who, in Anderson's words, are ?looking over the fence at healthcare, and saying, ?we can innovate in that space.'" While medtech companies collect and manage enormous amounts of data, Anderson and Davis suggest that technology companies like IBM Watson and Verily are the driving force behind new data analytics partnerships with established medtech players like Medtronic and Johnson & Johnson. Anderson says, ?the people who are really doing something on this front are the data people, like those at Verily; it's those tech companies who really understand the value of the data, and medtech is chasing rather than leading those partnership conversations." While early examples of these partnerships like Verb Surgical and Galvani Bioelectronics still have yet to launch major product offerings, Anderson and Davis agree that the wealth of data housed in the medtech space is likely to continue attracting the attention of out-of-industry innovators.
Positioning for Success Emerging Models For Medtech Dealmaking
In reviewing industry dynamics and the deal activity of medical device companies, Anderson and Davis describe a cast of archetypes that are likely to emerge as various players leverage different strategies and more specifically, types of deals to cope with industry-wide disruption. Anderson observes, ?bigger companies are deciding, as we speak, whether to be ?too big to fail' or to be technology innovators." He comments that the largest global players like Johnson & Johnson are more likely to choose the former, because, ?they're giant players with an unmatched global footprint; their strategy will be to occupy categories where they can win with scale." Companies like these, in Anderson's opinion, may invest modestly in innovation, but generally will play a consolidator role, operating under the assumption that ?they can buy whatever they want at whatever price."
Anderson also describes an alternative approach, in which companies like Siemens, GE, and Philips seek to vertically integrate and make targeted investments in particular services and therapeutic areas. The key to making this a winning strategy, according to Anderson, is to pick the right verticals that are well-positioned for innovation.
Underpinning both of these approaches is a heavy preference for acquisition on the part of traditional medtech companies. In Davis' words, ?large medtech companies have historically relied on a model of buying innovation from small companies, and then throwing it into their big company sales engines." However, both Anderson and Davis point out the pitfalls of this attitude, commenting, ?after the financial crisis, throughout 2008-2009, there was almost zero startup activity in medtech the largest hole ever in our industry is playing out right now, and the big companies are complaining that there's nothing to buy." Anderson says, ?the biggest medtech players are blindly going about what they've been doing, thinking the ecosystem will produce more companies when in fact, the tech folks like Qualcomm and Google see this as an opportunity to come in and disrupt their businesses."
Creative Approaches to Medtech Deals
Faced with a shortage of conventionally attractive acquisition targets, some medtech companies are turning to partnerships and creative deal terms to alleviate the stress of investing in early-stage, high-risk startups. Anderson remarks that while large device companies are ?starving for growth," many remain reluctant to make investments that are not accretive on day 1. Moreover, there's real risk of crushing new startups with heavy corporate structures, policies, and management. That said, Anderson argues, ?there's an awakening happening these companies are realizing that they can support off-balance sheet R&D units, and then leverage their global footprint to sell and share margin."
Arguably the most creative of these partnership structures are what Anderson calls ?build and buy" deals, a form of synthetic joint venture or phased acquisition between a startup technology company and its venture capital or private equity partners on the one hand, and an established medtech player on the other. The parties pre-agree to an overall partnership timeframe, development and other milestones, incremental funding commitments, exit ramps, and other key deal terms. As the partnership launches and progresses, the startup company gets access to capital in pre-agreed portions by way of convertible debt, off of the larger company's balance sheet as it achieves the predetermined milestones. Those milestones pertain not only to proving and scaling the technology in question, but also may include integrating the startup organization and its capabilities into the larger company's structure and product suite. If successful, the larger company will officially acquire the startup at the end of the programmed collaboration period, having already proven out the technology, tested the relationship, and proactively addressed the logistics of integration.
There are several clear benefits to this type of deal structure. In leveraging a ?build and buy" deal, large medtech companies have an opportunity to more exhaustively vet and nurture emergent technologies before taking major hits to their P&Ls. Startups receive the funding they need, but in Anderson's words avoid being ?tinkered to death" by the corporate structure and processes of an established medtech company. Looking ahead, Anderson believes that this type of collaborative transaction will be an appealing mechanism to de-risk key investments while fostering critical innovation in the medtech ecosystem.
Like most of the healthcare industry, Davis and Anderson agree that the medtech sector today is in a transitional period, anticipating a ?tsunami" of digital innovation and beginning to leverage collaborative deals as a means to capitalize on it. The companies best positioned to succeed will be those who commit meaningfully to innovation and are willing to flex collaborative partnership muscles that have been neglected by medtech players historically.
Read the full story at http://www.prweb.com/releases/2017/10/prweb14763875.htm.
Titan Medical
January 10, 2022 Titan Medical Corporate Presentation
https://d1io3yog0oux5.cloudfront.net/_101e2d94c73b26bc133246c537736f29/titanmedicalinc/db/1086/9873/pdf/Titan+-+IR+Presentation+-+Q1+2022+FINAL.pdf
*200+ patents issued or pending
Surgeon Feedback From Initial Clinical Testing:
Ricardo Estape, M.D., a robotic gynecologic oncology surgeon from South Miami Gynecology Oncology Group who specializes in robotic single port surgeries, said, “The SPORT Surgical System performed beyond my expectations and I was able to complete a variety of critical surgical tasks with the necessary dexterity and precision through a single incision. The robotic instruments provided the necessary articulation, range of motion and rigidity along with 3D high-definition video on the flat panel monitor that allowed me to complete the surgery in a comfortable posture. This could be a game changer in gynecological surgery.” SEE VIDEO
Eduardo Parra-Davila, M.D., a robotic colorectal surgeon at Florida Hospital who has trained thousands of surgeons worldwide on robotic surgery, commented, “Single port surgery without robotic assistance is not easy and yet it remains highly beneficial because of the desire to have fewer ports. It’s all about robotic articulation delivered through a single incision that allows for the reach, necessary angles and multi-quadrant access to treat diseases in colorectal surgeries. The SPORT Surgical System has the promise to become a valuable tool for all robotic surgeons looking to do single port surgery in the future.” SEE VIDEO
Arnold Advincula, M.D., Chief of Gynecologic Specialty Surgery at Columbia University and an expert in robotic surgery, said, “After using the SPORT system, I am more convinced that single-port robotic surgery could become a reality for many patients. Previous approaches to single-incision surgery have been limiting and ineffective. The SPORT system demonstrated that it can not only address those limitations, but it may also provide some unique capabilities for enabling a variety of gynecologic surgeries through a single incision. The future of single-port robotic surgery is bright and I am excited to actively participate in this journey with Titan Medical.”
Vipul Patel, M.D., a world-renowned robotic urology surgeon from the Global Robotics Institute at Florida Hospital and the only surgeon in the world to have completed 10,000 robotic prostatectomies, said, “Although multi-port robotic prostatectomy is currently the standard of care in urology, single port robotic surgery could be the next frontier in urology and other surgical disciplines. It was exciting for me to use Titan Medical’s SPORT system at Florida Hospital Nicholson Center. The technological capabilities of the SPORT system are very encouraging and the early success in establishing feasibility is an important step in the right direction.”
William Burke, M.D., a gynecologic oncologist at Stony Brook University Hospital with extensive robotic surgery experience, commented, “Having completed thousands of multi-port robotic surgeries over several years of practice, I was pleased with the capabilities of the SPORT system that eased my transition from a multi-port approach to single-port robotic surgery. The workspace, access and ease of use while maintaining critical multi-port robotic features such as multi-articulated instruments and high-definition 3D visualization through a single incision, are important factors in transitioning from multi-port to single-port robotic surgery. I must say that the SPORT system, with its sophistication, makes a highly compelling case for single-port robotic surgery.”
Lee Swanstrom, MD, FACS, Chief Innovation Officer of IHU Strasbourg, said, “I was pleased with my first experience with the SPORT system for applications in abdominal procedures. There are many patients undergoing general surgical procedures who could greatly benefit from a reduced number of incisions. Single-port robotic surgery can be a truly enabling solution for patients and surgeons alike, and it is exciting to see that the SPORT system takes us much closer to that possibility.”
Jelle Ruurda, MD, a gastrointestinal and oncologic surgeon at University Medical Center Utrecht, who has several years of robotic surgery experience, commented, “Many oncologic general surgery procedures require specimen retrieval at the end of the procedure. These procedures are natural applications for single-port robotic surgery. My first operation of the SPORT system in a preclinical environment was very exciting, and the system shows great promise for future clinical use. I look forward to the opportunity to work together with Titan Medical to evolve a single-port robotic surgery option for my oncology patients. Based on this first experience, I am confident that single-port robotic surgery has a bright future”.
Eric Barret, MD, a world-renowned robotic urologic surgeon at Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, said, “Having performed many single-incision robotic surgeries with flexible, non-wristed and crossed-over instruments, my first experience with the SPORT system was exceptional. The SPORT system addresses many limitations of previous laparoscopic and robotic single-incision surgery approaches, and holds significant promise for meaningful use in urologic applications.”
The SPORT Surgical System is a versatile single incision advanced robotic surgical system that features state-of the-art multi-articulated instruments with single-use replaceable tips, 3D high definition visualization on a flat-screen monitor, ergonomic open workstation and a single-arm mobile patient cart for ease of set up while enabling broad applications of single and multi-quadrant surgeries previously not possible with current robotic solutions.
Titan Medical Inc. is a Canadian public company, headquartered in Toronto, Ontario, that trades on the Toronto Stock Exchange (TMD) and the OTCQX in the United States (TITXF). Titan is developing the SPORT™ (Single Port Orifice Robotic Technology) Surgical System for use in minimally invasive surgery (“MIS”) that is expected to be commercially available in 2019. Titan’s robotic surgical system is being designed to expand robotic surgery into areas that are currently underserviced. This will allow surgeons to perform procedures within small to medium size surgical spaces such as general surgery and cholecystectomy. Currently, the most common medical procedures for which robotic systems are used are hysterectomies and prostatectomies. Titan plans to expand the scope and obtain approval for various surgical procedures as outlined in their Corporate Presentation. http://www.titanmedicalinc.com/
Interim President & CEO
In his over 10 years at Zephyr, Mr. Cataford was able to grow the team to over 65 people, clear class II medical devices through both 510 (k) and De Novo FDA approval paths and build a 13485: 2016 certified manufacturing facility. Zephyr successfully closed on two joint ventures with established dental technology companies raising over $20 million from a combination of strategic and private investors. He brings significant high technology and medical device company experience and is a key contributor to strategy, M&A, corporate finance, governance, team building and empowerment and scale. Over the last 25 years, Mr. Cataford has also served as independent corporate director on a number of TSX, TSXV and NASDAQ company boards including: Sierra Wireless, Inc., Trakopolis IoT Corp., SemiBioSys Genetics Inc., and AGJunction Inc. Mr. Cataford has a Bachelor of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering from Queen’s University, an MBA specializing in Finance and International Strategy from Schulich School of Business at York University, and is a graduate of the Institute of Corporate Directors – Directors College, Rotman School of Business at the University of Toronto.
Dr. Advincula is Vice-Chair of Women’s Health & Chief of Gynecology at the Sloane Hospital for Women, Columbia University Medical Center/New York Presbyterian Hospital. Formerly, he was Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Director of the Minimally Invasive Surgery Division and Fellowship, and Director of the Endometriosis Center at the University of Michigan. More recently, he was Director of the Center for Specialized Gynecology and Director of the Education Institute at the Nicholson Center, an advanced medical and surgical simulation training facility at Florida Health. He is currently Vice President of the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopy and a Member-at-Large for the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons. He is a leader in minimally invasive surgical techniques and one of the world’s most experienced gynecologic robotic surgeons, who has published and taught extensively in the area of minimally invasive surgery, as well as developed surgical instruments that are in use worldwide.
Dr. Juliane Bingener is Professor of Surgery, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, and Vice Chair for Quality, Safety and Service in the Mayo Clinic Department of Surgery. She has a joint appointment in the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, which supports her clinical interests in minimally invasive surgery, endoscopy, and gastrointestinal disease. Her research focuses on patient reported outcomes and novel technology in the diagnosis and treatment of these diseases. Dr. Bingener’s previous work included the development of a Natural Orifice Translumenal Endoscopic Surgery (NOTES) technique for using an omental patch to close perforated ulcers. Her ongoing interests focus on the development, study, and implementation of innovative endoscopic and laparoscopic approaches for gastrointestinal diseases.
Dr. Boyd is a Professor of Surgery and Director of Robotics and Biosurgery at the University of California Davis. He is Head of Adult Cardiac Surgery and Surgical Director of the Transcatheter Valve Program. He is recognized for his pioneering work in cardiothoracic surgery and for his use of robotic-assisted surgical systems. He specializes in minimally invasive cardiac and robotic-assisted heart surgery. Dr. Boyd completed the world’s first closed-chest, beating-heart coronary artery bypass surgery using a robotic system in 1999. Prior to his appointment as a professor of surgery at UC Davis Health System, Dr. Boyd served as chair of the Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery at the Cleveland Clinic in Florida. As the author of more than 70 peer-reviewed, journal articles, Dr. Boyd’s research interests include cardiac tissue regeneration using extracellular matrix/stem cells, new techniques for robot-assisted minimally invasive coronary artery revascularization, valve surgery and tele-surgery. He is a graduate of Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada and obtained his medical degree from the University of Ottawa, Canada.
Dr. Litwin trained in General Surgery at the University of Saskatchewan, and completed a hepatobiliary fellowship at the University of Toronto. He was an early pioneer in laparoscopic surgery, having performed the first laparoscopic cholecystectomy in Western Canada in 1990 and the first laparoscopic colectomy in Canada in 1991. He was a leader in educating a large number of surgeons across Canada in basic and advanced laparoscopic techniques. During the early advent of minimally invasive surgery, he innovated new laparoscopic approaches to the spine and aorta, and he participated in the development of HandPortTM, a hand assist device for laparoscopic surgery. In 1993, Dr. Litwin became the Director of Minimally Invasive Surgery at the University of Toronto. In 1997, he moved to the University of Massachusetts as Chief of Minimally Invasive Surgery. Since 2004, he has been Chairman of Surgery at the University of Massachusetts Medical School and UMass Memorial Medical Center, one of the largest Academic Health Sciences Centers in Massachusetts. There, he continues to practice minimally invasive surgery of the abdomen in addition to his administrative role.
Dr. Swanstrom heads the Division of GI and Minimally Invasive Surgery at the Oregon Clinic and is Director of the Providence Health System’s Complex GI and Foregut Surgery Postgraduate Fellowship Program. In addition, he is Clinical Professor in the Department of Surgery at OHSU, a Director of the American Board of Surgery, and Past President of both the Society of American Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) and the Fellowship Council (FC). Most recently, he became the Chief Innovations Officer and Director of the Innovations Fellowship at the Institutes des Hôpitalo Universitaires of the University of Strasbourg, France. He is the editor of Surgical Innovation and the author of over 300 scientific papers and 50 book chapters. This has resulted in 13 patents and a successful medical device startup company. He is and has been an investigator on numerous outcomes research studies for new procedures such as Natural Orifice Translumenal Endoscopic Surgery (NOTES) to determine their safety and efficacy for establishing new standards of care. He remains focused on developing innovative approaches to the minimally invasive treatment of foregut and other gastrointestinal disorders.
Dr. Valvo, a practicing surgeon, is the Executive Director of Robotic and Minimally Invasive Surgery at Rochester General Hospital in Rochester, New York, where he formerly was the Chief of Urology. Following a 20-year career performing open surgery, Dr. Valvo founded the robotic surgery program at Rochester General Hospital in early 2004, which currently ranks in the top two percent of robotic surgery volume in the United States. The program has trained over 30 robotic surgeons and enabled the completion of more than 7,000 robotic urology, gynecology, general and colorectal surgeries to date. Dr. Valvo has authored more than 100 scientific articles and helped start many robotic programs in the northeast. His focus on robotic surgery credentialing led to a notable published paper on policy guidelines for robotic surgery. He is a fellow of the American College of Surgeons and American Urological Association, and a member of the Society for Laparoscopic Surgeons.
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |