But I’m just being harshens or so. That step is basically entirely removed. What that means is that 15 minutes of OR time, which is very expensive, is removed. In addition to that, all the consumables and all the navigation instruments that we need to do the current tracking and registration, they are also removed. That is, again, a major cost-saving per procedure, but also for OUS market, that is basically a game-changer, not only in the U.S., but even more so for OUS because consumables tend to be way more expensive when the currency is exchanged. Yes, so we’re very excited about that.
Benjamin Sexson: Perfect. Thanks Kamran. So, kind of just really recap the design features. So, we’re innovating on the surgical approach and registration that’s not going to be in our Gen 1, but it’s going to be, the mBôs is going to be upgradable to mVision. And the idea here would be, as Kamran said, no point-based registration and hopefully very streamlined navigation. We have — we think enhance certainly over some of the state-of-the-art solutions with, we think, improved joint balancing have been a huge focus on for the company. We think this is a major benefit of being a CT-based system is joint balancing and specifically as you get to more patient-specific techniques, our system accounts for things like tibial rollback and some of the really the biomechanics, which is not a trivial thing.
And then the bone preparation, we think we have a very high efficiency mode of removing bone. And — but we have enhanced safety and — our mVision we have a cleared mPress implant line that’s ready to go. So, we have state-of-the-art cement-less implants that are already approved. And then as we are successful, our plan is to scale to other applications. Our plan is to scale to patient optimized 3D-printed implants that will happen in series. So, what we’ve said is we’re starting with the mPress implant line. The tibial component will be replaced with a novel tibia component that Doug has been spearheading the design of and then we would look for further optimizations from there. And then finally, launching OUS, we think, is also a pretty attractive I’m not sure.
I think that might have been a running [ph] bullet. So, I’m going to — basically, we believe that the solution we have, as Kamran said, makes sense OUS as well from a consumables perspective. Just in terms of kind of how we’re thinking about what the company — just looking at comparable company analysis for predicates — or not predicates with comparable companies in the space that got approval. There’s not a lot here. It’s a very consolidated market. There really haven’t been a lot of good comps. I think we could argue why Monogram is different than any of these, why we think that the value of Monogram in these metrics may not fully reflect the value of kind of what we’re doing here and how disruptive what we’re doing could be. But this gives you some idea of where a company like Monogram could be post-approval, but certainly not a forecast or make your own determinations of what you think Monogram could be worth.
But these are the metrics that bankers and so forth generally look at. And now I just want to recap our investment thesis. So, our vision is to commercialize an orthopedic robot that advance the standard-of-care in orthopedic robotics, while addressing the economic obstacles of orthopedic robotics today. So, when you look at robots on the market today, we don’t see any robot on the market today that increases throughput, so increases surgical time — decreases surgical time and we see every robot on the market today, basically requires incremental consumables. So, you’re adding cost, you’re adding time, and then the clinical benefit for any system that doesn’t really do personalized surgery very well is sort of, I would say, kind of marginal at best.
You can probably do a mechanical knee replacement with manual instruments more accurately than you can with the robot. So, the value proposition of robotics really hasn’t been fully realized. And our vision is to create a robot that solves economic problems and clinical problems. So, how do we solve the economic problems? We’re going to try and make a robot that’s faster. How are we going to do that? We’re going to use technology like mVision, where we get rid of point-based registration and hopefully get rid of all of the setup placing larger rates. We have very, very efficient cutting. And then we’re going to have a system that doesn’t — hopefully doesn’t require any consumables in the navigation. So, if you imagine kind of getting rid of the incremental consumables.
And then you think about a system that can scale to other clinical opportunities because it is such an incredible piece of hardware, right? This is a seven-joint robot arm, it has a lot of dexterity. We can nil hip cavities in prototype versions of our design in simulated surgeries. We can — if you think about minimally-invasive surgery, having a system that could be active when it makes sense to be active or semi-active. It really — what we’re envisioning is one robot for the operating room, training, servicing, sales, all synergistic, basically a Trojan horse that if you get it into a hospital, now your spine group has something to sell. Now, your knee group has something to sell. Now, your hip group has something to sell, your shoulder team.
That’s really the vision of the company. And then over time, we have very compelling personalized implant designs, and we plan to upgrade the mPress implant line to more and more enhanced implants that we think will address the — basically the working capital burden. I think that said, we want to close with this slide. First off, I want to say something because there are people that post online and I just want to tell you, as a management team, we do read those comments. So, if you want to communicate with us, we do see where people are frustrated and what they’re saying. And I want to say a couple of things right out of the gate. We’re not happy about where the stock is at. It doesn’t make us feel good. We are competitive. We believe we have something compelling and that’s not something that makes us happy to see.