Reported Outcomes With the Genesis Platform: Setup Time, Dock Time, Migration, and Adoption
Facility-reported results, with the method behind each number. By David Gomez, CRNA.
The figures IMT cites for the Genesis Bi-Wing AAP platform come from facilities that measured their own operating rooms before and after adoption. This page sets out each result, what was measured, and how a facility can reproduce the measurement in its own EHR. Facilities are described by type rather than name. Reference contacts at these facilities are available to evaluating facilities through your IMT representative.
Result 1: OR setup and positioning time
Setting: a perioperative team measuring room turnover from environmental services clearing the room through back table setup, including patient positioning once the patient was on the bed.
Conventional method: placing gel pads, arm boards, and a draw sheet on the OR bed, then positioning the patient. Average time to complete: 17 to 25 minutes, depending on the type and length of procedure, the size of the patient, and the staff available. The higher times correspond to larger patients, who take more hands and more time to position by draw sheet.
Genesis: one platform placed on the bed, with positioning and transfer by the integrated handles. The facility’s measured time to complete setup including patient positioning was 5 to 6 minutes, with positioning itself averaging 1 to 2 minutes. In IMT’s own observation across conversions, assembling the platform and placing it on the bed takes 1 to 2 minutes, so a trained team working at pace completes setup and positioning in 2 to 4 minutes; the 5 to 6 minute figure is the facility’s measurement and is used here.
| Measure | Conventional | Genesis | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Setup through positioning, per case (facility measured) | 17 to 25 minutes | 5 to 6 minutes | 11 to 20 minutes saved |
| Platform placement on the bed (IMT observed) | Gel pads, arm boards, draw sheet | 1 to 2 minutes | |
| Patient positioning step alone | Included above; longest for larger patients | 1 to 2 minutes | |
| What drives the conventional time | Procedure type and length, patient size, staff available | Consistent across patient sizes | |
| Steps replaced | Gel pads, arm boards, draw sheet, manual positioning | Single platform |
The team described Genesis as a “one and done” system: the same platform that is placed at setup carries the patient through positioning and transfer, so the separate steps of padding, arm boards, and draw sheet are not repeated for each case.
IMT trial measurements across facilities
Across IMT’s own trials at multiple facilities, conventional draw-sheet positioning has measured between 5 and 25 minutes per case. The spread is driven by the equipment in use, the staff available, and the size of the patient: a thin patient with simple positioning takes a few minutes or less, while a larger patient with complex positioning requirements takes longer and pulls in more staff. The facility result above, 17 to 25 minutes for setup through positioning, sits within that pattern. The cost-of-ownership calculator uses 15 minutes, the midpoint of the range, as its default for the conventional method.
Result 2: Robotic dock time
Setting: a high-volume robotic surgery epicenter in Texas, reported in writing by the surgeon and robotic lead.
Finding: a 17 to 25 minute improvement in robotic dock time per lithotomy procedure with the Genesis system, 22 minutes on average.
The two results sit back to back on the case timeline and do not overlap. Result 1 ends when the patient is positioned. Result 2 covers what follows: prepping, draping, incision, and docking the robot. The 17 to 25 minute improvement lives in that span, because a patient who is positioned once, secured by full pad-to-skin contact, and does not migrate in steep Trendelenburg does not need to be repositioned or redocked after the drapes are up.
| Case timeline | Covered by |
|---|---|
| Room clear, bed setup, patient onto bed, positioning | Result 1: setup and positioning time |
| Prepping, draping, incision, robot docked | Result 2: dock time; Result 3: migration and redocking |
| Measure | Reported result |
|---|---|
| Dock time improvement per case | 17 to 25 minutes, 22 on average |
Result 3: Patient migration and redocking in steep Trendelenburg
Setting: a university robotic surgery program in Kansas.
Finding: zero patient migration and no redocking in steep Trendelenburg cases on the Genesis platform. Migration is the usual reason a docked robot has to be undocked, the patient repositioned, and the robot docked again, so this result is the mechanism behind the dock time improvement in Result 2.
| Measure | Reported result |
|---|---|
| Patient migration in steep Trendelenburg | None reported |
| Redocking required | None reported |
Result 4: Adoption across a multi-hospital market
Setting: the robotic coordinators of a multi-hospital health system’s Texas market, each of whom had used the platform in their own program.
Finding: the coordinators collectively agreed the platform was superior to any positioning product used since the start of their robotic programs, and asked that it be made the standard for robotic surgery across the market’s hospitals.
Across accounts
IMT keeps the value analysis records from every converted account. They consistently show the same pattern described above: setup and positioning time reduced, no patient migration in steep Trendelenburg, and fewer staff required per positioning event. Those records are not published because they identify facilities and clinicians. Evaluating facilities can review them, and speak with the people who produced them, by requesting reference contacts through their IMT representative.
What the numbers mean for an OR
All of these results are time and events a facility can measure itself. At a composite OR cost of $74 per minute, the dock time result is about $1,628 per case before the product cost and about $1,578 after it, with a 31 to 32 times return on the incremental product spend. At the most conservative staff-pay floor of $14 per minute it is still about $308 per case. The setup result adds room turnover capacity on top of that, in the range of 11 to 20 minutes per case.
The cost-of-ownership calculator runs this arithmetic on your own case volume, OR minute rate, and measured times, and reports released time and staff time as separate measures.
How to reproduce the measurement in your EHR
- Pick the interval. For setup, record environmental services clear through patient positioned. For dock time, record positioning complete through robot docked, which spans prepping, draping, and incision. Both are usually already captured in the perioperative record.
- Measure the current method first. Twenty to thirty cases across different staff, shifts, and procedure types gives a usable baseline. Note procedure type and patient BMI for each case.
- Train every shift the same way before the trial. IMT provides on-site education before the first case so the trial measures the platform, not who happened to be shown how to use it.
- Measure Genesis cases the same way, over the same mix. Record redocking events and any patient migration in steep Trendelenburg as yes or no per case, and the number of staff at each positioning event.
- Compare the intervals. The difference is your released time. Enter it in the calculator with your own OR minute rate.
What this data is and is not
These are facility-reported measurements from clinical practice, not a controlled trial. Each facility measured its own workflow using its own definitions, and results at another institution will depend on case mix, staffing, and the method being replaced. IMT does not publish facility or clinician names. Evaluating facilities can request reference contacts through their IMT representative to validate these results directly.
For the clinical reasoning behind the platform, see combined patient handling and positioning platforms. For product details, see Genesis Bi-Wing AAP and Hadron FPLS.
