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.
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.
Lol. Post Anything that shows how Alf benefits the patient
Nope. I said it at $6.00 just 3days before the Surgibot pumpery was axed by the FDA and the PPS collapsed to .50.
Wanna try again. While you’re at it, tell me how SH Benefits the Patients.
Yea, and Cramer never said “invest in Bear” before the collapse from 45 to 2.00
500%? LOL. Ask those 20 THOUSAND ST members holding since 6.24 back in 2016. HILARIOUS!
Wanna ask the same ones holding since $6.42 back in 2014?
How bout the ones holding since $12.00 in 2013.
Post your BUY order.
Total Laparoscopic (S-LPS) versus TELELAP ALF-X Robotic-Assisted Hysterectomy: A Case-Control Study.
Fanfani F1, Restaino S2, Rossitto C3, Gueli Alletti S3, Costantini B3, Monterossi G3, Cappuccio S3, Perrone E3, Scambia G3.
Author information
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVE:
To compare the feasibility and safety of the TELELAP ALF-X system and standard laparoscopy for total hysterectomy to treat patients with benign and early malignant gynecologic disease.
DESIGN:
Single-institution retrospective case-control study (Canadian Task Force classification II-2).
SETTING:
Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy.
PATIENTS:
Between October 2013 and May 2015, 203 women underwent TELELAP-ALF X (group 1) or standard laparoscopic (group 2) total hysterectomy and were enrolled.
INTERVENTIONS:
Total standard laparoscopy vs TELELAP ALF-X robot-assisted hysterectomy for benign and early malignant gynecologic disease.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:
In group 1, the median age was 55 years (range, 40-79 years), median body mass index (BMI) was 25 kg/m(2) (range, 17-38 kg/m(2)), and 51 patients (58%) had undergone previous abdominal surgery. In the control group, the median age was 55 years (range, 34-90 years), median BMI was 25 kg/m(2) (range, 17-41 kg/m(2)), and 31 patients (27%) had previous abdominal surgery. The median operative time was 147 minutes (range, 58-320 minutes) in group 1 and 80 minutes (range, 22-300 minutes) in group 2 (p = .055). The median estimated blood loss was 57 mL (range, 0-600 mL) in group 1 and 99 mL (range, 0-400 mL) in group 2, with no significant differences between the 2 groups (p = .963). Procedures were successfully performed without conversion in 94.3% of cases in the group 1 and in all cases in group 2. Early postoperative pain was significantly lower in group 2.
CONCLUSION:
TELELAP ALF-X hysterectomy in patients with benign and early malignant gynecologic disease is feasible and safe, and can be considered a valid option for these patients.
Copyright © 2016 AAGL. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
KEYWORDS:
Hysterectomy; Laparoscopy; Robotic; TELELAP ALF-X
PMID: 27247263 DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2016.05.008
Total Laparoscopic (S-LPS) versus TELELAP ALF-X Robotic-Assisted Hysterectomy: A Case-Control Study.
Fanfani F1, Restaino S2, Rossitto C3, Gueli Alletti S3, Costantini B3, Monterossi G3, Cappuccio S3, Perrone E3, Scambia G3.
Author information
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVE:
To compare the feasibility and safety of the TELELAP ALF-X system and standard laparoscopy for total hysterectomy to treat patients with benign and early malignant gynecologic disease.
DESIGN:
Single-institution retrospective case-control study (Canadian Task Force classification II-2).
SETTING:
Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy.
PATIENTS:
Between October 2013 and May 2015, 203 women underwent TELELAP-ALF X (group 1) or standard laparoscopic (group 2) total hysterectomy and were enrolled.
INTERVENTIONS:
Total standard laparoscopy vs TELELAP ALF-X robot-assisted hysterectomy for benign and early malignant gynecologic disease.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:
In group 1, the median age was 55 years (range, 40-79 years), median body mass index (BMI) was 25 kg/m(2) (range, 17-38 kg/m(2)), and 51 patients (58%) had undergone previous abdominal surgery. In the control group, the median age was 55 years (range, 34-90 years), median BMI was 25 kg/m(2) (range, 17-41 kg/m(2)), and 31 patients (27%) had previous abdominal surgery. The median operative time was 147 minutes (range, 58-320 minutes) in group 1 and 80 minutes (range, 22-300 minutes) in group 2 (p = .055). The median estimated blood loss was 57 mL (range, 0-600 mL) in group 1 and 99 mL (range, 0-400 mL) in group 2, with no significant differences between the 2 groups (p = .963). Procedures were successfully performed without conversion in 94.3% of cases in the group 1 and in all cases in group 2. Early postoperative pain was significantly lower in group 2.
CONCLUSION:
TELELAP ALF-X hysterectomy in patients with benign and early malignant gynecologic disease is feasible and safe, and can be considered a valid option for these patients.
Copyright © 2016 AAGL. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
KEYWORDS:
Hysterectomy; Laparoscopy; Robotic; TELELAP ALF-X
PMID: 27247263 DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2016.05.008
Nope. I said the “same thing” with Surgibot. Remember that? Pope dumped it on China for pennies on the dollar and screwed investors by the billions just to stay afloat wile Alf suckers noobs into the scam.
Run? 2013 longs said $100.00 now.
They haven’t even broke even. Nice try.
Alf doesn’t provide better patient outcomes. Prove me wrong.
A study involving Transenterix and SOFAR’s best surgeons support me.
For the record lap times on a tahbso are 83 Minutes. Davinci is 20 Minutes Senhance takes 147 Minutes.
Prove me wrong and prove Surgical data wrong.
Total Laparoscopic (S-LPS) versus TELELAP ALF-X Robotic-Assisted Hysterectomy: A Case-Control Study.
Fanfani F1, Restaino S2, Rossitto C3, Gueli Alletti S3, Costantini B3, Monterossi G3, Cappuccio S3, Perrone E3, Scambia G3.
Author information
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVE:
To compare the feasibility and safety of the TELELAP ALF-X system and standard laparoscopy for total hysterectomy to treat patients with benign and early malignant gynecologic disease.
DESIGN:
Single-institution retrospective case-control study (Canadian Task Force classification II-2).
SETTING:
Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy.
PATIENTS:
Between October 2013 and May 2015, 203 women underwent TELELAP-ALF X (group 1) or standard laparoscopic (group 2) total hysterectomy and were enrolled.
INTERVENTIONS:
Total standard laparoscopy vs TELELAP ALF-X robot-assisted hysterectomy for benign and early malignant gynecologic disease.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:
In group 1, the median age was 55 years (range, 40-79 years), median body mass index (BMI) was 25 kg/m(2) (range, 17-38 kg/m(2)), and 51 patients (58%) had undergone previous abdominal surgery. In the control group, the median age was 55 years (range, 34-90 years), median BMI was 25 kg/m(2) (range, 17-41 kg/m(2)), and 31 patients (27%) had previous abdominal surgery. The median operative time was 147 minutes (range, 58-320 minutes) in group 1 and 80 minutes (range, 22-300 minutes) in group 2 (p = .055). The median estimated blood loss was 57 mL (range, 0-600 mL) in group 1 and 99 mL (range, 0-400 mL) in group 2, with no significant differences between the 2 groups (p = .963). Procedures were successfully performed without conversion in 94.3% of cases in the group 1 and in all cases in group 2. Early postoperative pain was significantly lower in group 2.
CONCLUSION:
TELELAP ALF-X hysterectomy in patients with benign and early malignant gynecologic disease is feasible and safe, and can be considered a valid option for these patients.
Copyright © 2016 AAGL. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
KEYWORDS:
Hysterectomy; Laparoscopy; Robotic; TELELAP ALF-X
PMID: 27247263 DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2016.05.008
Nope. Clinical data proves it. Alf uses 1980’s Laparoscopic instruments. Davinci reduces times with articulation at the distal end. Prove me WRONG.
Total Laparoscopic (S-LPS) versus TELELAP ALF-X Robotic-Assisted Hysterectomy: A Case-Control Study.
Fanfani F1, Restaino S2, Rossitto C3, Gueli Alletti S3, Costantini B3, Monterossi G3, Cappuccio S3, Perrone E3, Scambia G3.
Author information
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVE:
To compare the feasibility and safety of the TELELAP ALF-X system and standard laparoscopy for total hysterectomy to treat patients with benign and early malignant gynecologic disease.
DESIGN:
Single-institution retrospective case-control study (Canadian Task Force classification II-2).
SETTING:
Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy.
PATIENTS:
Between October 2013 and May 2015, 203 women underwent TELELAP-ALF X (group 1) or standard laparoscopic (group 2) total hysterectomy and were enrolled.
INTERVENTIONS:
Total standard laparoscopy vs TELELAP ALF-X robot-assisted hysterectomy for benign and early malignant gynecologic disease.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:
In group 1, the median age was 55 years (range, 40-79 years), median body mass index (BMI) was 25 kg/m(2) (range, 17-38 kg/m(2)), and 51 patients (58%) had undergone previous abdominal surgery. In the control group, the median age was 55 years (range, 34-90 years), median BMI was 25 kg/m(2) (range, 17-41 kg/m(2)), and 31 patients (27%) had previous abdominal surgery. The median operative time was 147 minutes (range, 58-320 minutes) in group 1 and 80 minutes (range, 22-300 minutes) in group 2 (p = .055). The median estimated blood loss was 57 mL (range, 0-600 mL) in group 1 and 99 mL (range, 0-400 mL) in group 2, with no significant differences between the 2 groups (p = .963). Procedures were successfully performed without conversion in 94.3% of cases in the group 1 and in all cases in group 2. Early postoperative pain was significantly lower in group 2.
CONCLUSION:
TELELAP ALF-X hysterectomy in patients with benign and early malignant gynecologic disease is feasible and safe, and can be considered a valid option for these patients.
Copyright © 2016 AAGL. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
KEYWORDS:
Hysterectomy; Laparoscopy; Robotic; TELELAP ALF-X
PMID: 27247263 DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2016.05.008
Wrong. Robotic platforms are in demand when they benefit patient outcomes. SH has no benefit to the patient vs laparoscopic or current davinci RASD platforms. Every study available on SH is available at PubMed and it backs up everything I say. I’ve been in the OR for 18 years and logged over 6K hours in Robotic Surgery.
SH is NOT cheaper no matter what Pope says. SH takes 147 minutes for a tahbso, Lap 83, Davinci 20 minutes.
OR time is $150.00 per minute so just do the math. Add in more post op pain with Alf and 2-3 days hospitalization.
But since you’re talking upfront costs consider the Davinci X that was fda cleared this year. It costs 130K LESS than SH and has 4 arms that unlike SH, provide counter traction.
No problem. This is where I told everyone to sell during the SB hype, FDA denial and collapse to .50. Same thing is happening now. Time to say it again...
Sell now before it collapses.
LOL. There’s always a range. I posted the site to research every clinical study available on Alf. It does not provide patient benefits. Period.
Then post the Intuitive studies. They don’t exist. The “news” on Alf isn’t old its current.
Wrong. And you obviously haven’t read the clinical data. SH converts 6% of the time. DV less than 1%. SH causes more post op pain, longer hospitalization, take 1.5x longer than Laparoscopic and 3-5X longer vs Davinci. All this is backed up by clinical studies available at Pub Med. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/
Simple example.
Total Laparoscopic (S-LPS) versus TELELAP ALF-X Robotic-Assisted Hysterectomy: A Case-Control Study.
Fanfani F1, Restaino S2, Rossitto C3, Gueli Alletti S3, Costantini B3, Monterossi G3, Cappuccio S3, Perrone E3, Scambia G3.
Author information
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVE:
To compare the feasibility and safety of the TELELAP ALF-X system and standard laparoscopy for total hysterectomy to treat patients with benign and early malignant gynecologic disease.
DESIGN:
Single-institution retrospective case-control study (Canadian Task Force classification II-2).
SETTING:
Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy.
PATIENTS:
Between October 2013 and May 2015, 203 women underwent TELELAP-ALF X (group 1) or standard laparoscopic (group 2) total hysterectomy and were enrolled.
INTERVENTIONS:
Total standard laparoscopy vs TELELAP ALF-X robot-assisted hysterectomy for benign and early malignant gynecologic disease.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:
In group 1, the median age was 55 years (range, 40-79 years), median body mass index (BMI) was 25 kg/m(2) (range, 17-38 kg/m(2)), and 51 patients (58%) had undergone previous abdominal surgery. In the control group, the median age was 55 years (range, 34-90 years), median BMI was 25 kg/m(2) (range, 17-41 kg/m(2)), and 31 patients (27%) had previous abdominal surgery. The median operative time was 147 minutes (range, 58-320 minutes) in group 1 and 80 minutes (range, 22-300 minutes) in group 2 (p = .055). The median estimated blood loss was 57 mL (range, 0-600 mL) in group 1 and 99 mL (range, 0-400 mL) in group 2, with no significant differences between the 2 groups (p = .963). Procedures were successfully performed without conversion in 94.3% of cases in the group 1 and in all cases in group 2. Early postoperative pain was significantly lower in group 2
Why can’t you say how Alf benefits the patient.
No need. It has nothing to do with SH not bettering patient outcomes. IT DOESN’T.
When Senhance takes 147 minutes to do a tahbso, Lap takes 83 minutes and davinci takes 20 minutes, why would I buy Popes 1980s technology?
That’s your debate? Then prove it. Has does SH Benefit Patient outcomes?
I speak form 18 year experience in the OR and 6K hours in Robotic surgery. You?
The ULTRASONIC & 3MM LIE
Nothing more than quintessential distraction to avoid surgical shortcomings inherent to Popes robotic platform.
“Ultrasonic energy”! Doesn’t that sound impressive? Sure it does, but the fact is it’s been around since at least 2010 and it’s nothing new. SH is 9 years old and was designed with instruments that were designed decades older. Monopolar and Bipolar energy (cautery) are the basics of surgical hemostasis, and until Pope announced “ultrasonic energy” Senhan.. (formally known as ALF) was all pre 2000 instrumentation.
3mm has been available in pediatrics for decades as well and it never made the crossover to surgical application in adults because the advantages are minimal.
Actually the platform wasn’t approved as submitted. The footprint was massive and the FDA axed the 4 arm. Now with only 3 arms, this platform takes even longer than it did before.
Nope. this stock started at $12, 5 years ago and since 2013 hasn’t been above $6.00 and change. Don’t sit down in the middle of a movie and review it. SB failed, Spider failed and SH will fail.
The platform has no counter traction and in no way provides for better patient outcomes.
As I called it in 2014, 3 days before Surgibot FDA rejection, I did the same last week on the pump to $6.00. Once again, I told people to bail.
What followed? More disparaging comments, all week and the price fell 32% from exactly where I said.
Get this through your heads.
Alf is a nonviable RASD, built in 2009 with 30 year old Laparoscopic Sticks that cant even better Laparoscopic times, much less Davinci times that are significantly lower.
Nope. Pope already had a “distribution center” set up in Australia last year. They have since terminated the agreement with TRXC.
No way was this a commercial sale. Pope claiming credit for Clinical sales is borderline unethical.
CAPEX purchases exceeding 250K by hospitals take board approval and at least a year to approve. They’re also made at the end of the year.
Even the Nicholson Center placement (Florida Hospitals academic training center) was suspect as the surgeon responsible for the “Purchase”is a TRXC consultant.
Hilarious! Alf can’t counter tract without a 4th arm. That’s simple BASIC tissue dissection. They designed, tested and received a CE clearance in Europe for the 4 arm configuration. Still in Europe with 4 arms. If you think for a MINUTE they would only submit a 3 arm configuration, it only validates a lack of understanding involving surgical procedures and technique.
Yes, they did. The fda told them 4 arms would not be approved, so they submitted for 3. 3 arms can’t counter tract. Ever do ant surgeries? No? Well you absolutely need counter traction.
Never said it wasn’t. But it’s bee obsolete since 2015.
FDA? Hilarious! It doesn’t matter what Alf is approved for. It can’t counter tract, causes more post op pain, longer hospitalization times and a HUGE PLATFORM that the FDA denied, leaving Alf with only 3 arms that can’t even counter tract.
Intuitive Surgical Has already obsoleted the Si which was the predicated device for Alf back in 2015, yet Pope is pumping this garbage foe a 3 million dollar paycheck.
Hilarious!
Yep. I do know how they work, it’s part of my job. Alf was denied by the FDA for the 4 arm submission, now it has 3 and can’t even counter tract.
Alf was renamed by Pope to obfuscate. Period.
Alf has ZERO COMMERCIAL SALES since it was introduced in 2009. It’s 10 years old, causes more post op pain, takes 3x longer than Davinci and 1.5 x longer than Laparoscopic procedures.
My credentials. 18 years as a Surgical Technologist, senior lead in current RASD program, 10 hours on RASD sims.
What are yours?
“All the approvals” Hilarious! No mater how many”Approvals” come, it’s still a 10 year old platform that causes longer surgical time, more post op pain, and much longer recovery times vs standard Laparoscopic and much more than Davinci times. Alf has a HUGE platform that obstructs healthcare workers from access to the patient.
EVERY STUDY PROVES IT.
Exactly why it has no commercial sales since getting CE approval in Europe back in 2013.
Keep buying Popes BS. All it’s gonna do is get you broke.
It’s not out of the gete. It was CE approved in 2013 and still not one single commercial sale.
The predicate device Alf was compared to was the Si 2009 model. It’s been discontinued since 2015. Pope is pumping a device twice that old white times 4-5 times longer.
Not in please yet? They’ve had 10 years to get Alf into place.
Can’t you Read? The Alf times are NOT from when the platform was NEW and NOT when ALF was “Starting out”. They are MEDIAN times based on THOUSANDS OF HOURS since 2015. Not since 20009.
The davinci S tahbso times were ALF of ALFS current times. PERIOD.
The sales are CLINICAL not Commercial. Do some DD and find out why it’s significant.
The no sales outcome with FDA approval will be no different than no sales with a CE mark. Alf offers no advantage over standard Laparoscopic technology whatsoever, all it does it place a device between the surgeons and the patients, something Pope claimed Surgeons DID NOT WANT when he was pumping Surgiflop.
It does take Alf longer than standard lap as pointed out in the clinical studies. Median time (tahbso) for lap is 83 minutes VS 147 minutes for Alf.
Another reason that hospitals are not going to touch it.
No they weren’t and Alf times are not from “new procedures”, they’re times that are current after thousands of hours. Do some DD instead of guessing. I’ll be really glad when Popes remaining 5 quarters run out and no commercial sales will still be the status quo. BTW the Davinci X is 130K LESS than ALF and still utilizes articulating instruments to provide better Patient outcomes and reduced surgical times.
Nope. It was CE approved since 2013 and European hospitals wanted nothing to do with it. 10 years later, surgical times are no better. 147 minutes for a TAHBSO vs Davinci times of 25 minutes.
Who said “pathetic hit piece”? Talk about disillusioned! It was quit honest regardless of their position.
Nope. I dislike because Alf doesn’t work. I have no vested interest. I just hate scams.