TSRFC

Translational Surgical Risk & Feasibility Comparator

Compare concepts across technical, workflow, economic, adoption and evidence surfaces. Values illustrative.

Prototype view — not a clinical decision aid
ProcedureSpine – MIS L4/5 Lumbar Decompression
•
IndicationLumbar spinal stenosis L4/5 (elective MIS corridor)
•
Illustrative values only. Outcomes, patient modifiers and local data intentionally omitted in this prototype.
Purpose

Compare two concepts against current practice across translational friction surfaces. Supports discussion; does not replace outcome data or clinical judgement.

Scenario
Current practice
Current MIS Lumbar Decompression
MIS lumbar decompression (L4/5)
Composite friction
5.3
Interpretive band (prototype)
CAUTIOUS
Evidence strength
1.1
Relative within this scenario. Values are illustrative and not a clinical decision aid.
Interpretive band (prototype): CAUTIOUS
Moderate friction – would usually warrant structured introduction and monitoring.
Concept A

Guided Decompression Sleeve

Navigation-assisted decompression aid within MIS corridor, bounded resection envelope and depth cues.

Spine · MIS lumbar decompression (L4/5)

Unit operations
9/9
Steps explicitly touched in the pathway.
Evidence strength
1.0
Relative within this scenario. Values are illustrative and not a clinical decision aid.
Composite translational friction
4.5
Sum of technical, workflow, economic and adoption surfaces.
Risk breakdown (0–10, context-relative)
Technical2.5
Workflow1.0
Economic0.5
Adoption0.5
Failure surfaces (illustrative)
T
2.5
W
1.0
E
0.5
Ev
0.0
Ad
0.5
Patient Value (prototype — not scored)

Patient value is considered qualitatively (e.g. LOS, complications, recovery, QoL, preference) and is not scored in this prototype.

Reduces freehand variation, introduces dependency on guidance stack and device-specific learning curve.

Interpretive band (prototype): CAUTIOUS
Moderate friction – would usually warrant structured introduction and monitoring.
Concept B

Robotic MIS Platform

Robotic-assisted docking and decompression platform integrated with navigation and custom instruments.

Spine · MIS lumbar decompression (L4/5)

Unit operations
9/9
Steps explicitly touched in the pathway.
Evidence strength
0.8
Relative within this scenario. Values are illustrative and not a clinical decision aid.
Composite translational friction
7.0
Sum of technical, workflow, economic and adoption surfaces.
Risk breakdown (0–10, context-relative)
Technical2.0
Workflow2.0
Economic2.0
Adoption1.0
Failure surfaces (illustrative)
T
2.0
W
2.0
E
2.0
Ev
0.2
Ad
1.0
Patient Value (prototype — not scored)

Patient value is considered qualitatively (e.g. LOS, complications, recovery, QoL, preference) and is not scored in this prototype.

Improves ergonomics and reproducibility but adds capital cost, setup time, and additional team training in early adoption phases.

Comparison
DimensionStandard of careConcept AConcept BΔ A vs SOCΔ B vs SOC
Technical friction2.82.52.0-0.3↓ -0.8
Workflow friction1.01.02.00.0↑ +1.0
Economic friction0.80.52.0-0.3↑ +1.2
Adoption friction0.70.51.0-0.2+0.3
Evidence strength1.11.00.8-0.1-0.3
Composite friction5.34.57.0↓ -0.8↑ +1.7
Decision bands
GO
Lower composite friction. Candidate for structured introduction, subject to outcome signal and governance.
Cautious
Moderate friction. Requires formal introduction pathway, mitigation plan and monitoring.
No-go
High friction. Suggests substantial redesign or study environment rather than routine adoption.
Methodological notes (prototype)

Values shown here are illustrative and scenario-specific, not validated scores.

This view is designed to support structured discussion of translational friction (technical, workflow, economic, adoption).

It is not a clinical decision support tool and does not model patient-level outcomes.

Scenario summary

Guided Decompression Sleeve shows lower composite friction than baseline and Robotic MIS Platform. Natural candidate for structured evaluation, assuming outcomes not degraded.