The Future of Soft Tissue Robotics: Open vs. Closed Systems
At LSI USA ’25, the question wasn’t whether soft tissue robotics will reshape surgery, but how. In a panel titled Soft Tissue Robotics: Open Architecture or Closed System? The Road Forward, industry leaders tackled one of the field’s most urgent debates: whether future surgical platforms should embrace openness or remain tightly integrated.
Moderated by Joe Mullings of The Mullings Group, the conversation spanned technical ecosystems, innovation bottlenecks, surgeon preferences, and investment models. The verdict? There’s no single answer, but the stakes for patients, startups, and strategics have never been higher.
Defining the Debate in Soft Tissue Robotics
To level-set the discussion, Mullings began by asking the panelists to define what “open” and “closed” mean in the context of soft tissue robotics.
Greg Roche, CEO of Distalmotion, put it simply: “Choice is the difference between open and closed. When you close something down, you limit the offering in the long term.” Roche argued that open systems allow surgeons and hospitals to pick best-in-class technologies across the surgical stack, building a custom ecosystem instead of being locked into a single vendor.
Scott Huennekens, former CEO of Verb Surgical and longtime digital surgery leader, offered a broader systems view. “I never even liked the term ‘robotic surgery.’ I always preferred ‘digital surgery,’” he said. “It’s not just about the robot. It’s about instruments, connectivity, data, analytics, and precision guidance, all working together.”
Oliver Keown, CEO of Oath Surgical and former founder and leader of Intuitive Ventures, added that the real goal is to deliver surgical value across the entire continuum of care. “I don’t know if any systems today are truly open or truly closed,” Keown said. “What matters is how technologies align with the outcomes and efficiencies that health systems and surgeons care about.”
Innovation, Investment, and the Open vs. Closed Dilemma
The panelists agreed that the rapid innovation curve in soft tissue robotics makes the open versus closed conversation more pressing than ever.
“We’re in a very high innovation curve,” said Mullings. “Look at what’s happening in imaging, AI, telepresence, navigation. If you try to bundle all of that into a closed system, you lose that optionality.”
Huennekens cited On Target Laboratories, where he sits on the board, as an example. “If their cancer-targeting fluorescence only worked on one robot, we’d be limiting cancer care,” he said. “Instead, they’re making it platform-agnostic. That’s what accelerates progress.”
Roche noted the financial upside of openness as well. “Trying to master six or seven verticals in-house is nearly impossible and incredibly expensive,” he said. “From an investment perspective, it’s better to see focused innovation from multiple companies that can plug into a shared ecosystem.”
This blog is originally published here: https://www.lsiusasummit.com/news/the-future-of-soft-tissue-robotics-open-vs-closed-systems
Comments
Post a Comment