Let's talk Mako SmartRobotics™
Mako SmartRobotics™ combines three key components: 3D CT-based planning, AccuStop™ haptic technology and Insightful Data Analytics, into one platform that has shown better outcomes for your total knee, total hip and partial knee patients.1,2,3
Introducing
Mako Total Knee 2.0
Mako Total Knee 2.0
Informed by over 500,000 Mako Total Knee procedures over the past six years, Mako Total Knee 2.0 is designed to deliver the same, trusted outcomes surgeons expect from Mako with the new, elevated user experience they deserve.
The outcomes you expect.
The experience you deserve.
Built on Legacy
The unique features of Mako Total Knee SmartRobotics™ are designed to help you optimise Triathlon component positioning and enhance functional outcomes.2 Intraoperatively, surgeons have the ability to assess soft tissue laxities and adjust the placement of implants to achieve the final position before cuts. With the use of AccuStop™ haptic technology, studies have demonstrated more pristine bone resections,4 less soft tissue damage4 and greater bone preservation when compared to manual cutting blocks.5
Mako Total Hip
Enhance your Mako Total Hip experience through patient-specific planning to enable more accurate implant positioning to plan.6 Surgeons can visualise potential impingement by looking at the changes to their patient’s pelvic tilt in the sitting, standing and supine positioning. Using AccuStop™ haptic technology and a patient specific CT scan, Mako Total Hip enables single stage reaming and guided cup impaction to help promote accurate implant placement.7
Mako Partial Knee
Mako Partial Knee helps enable the surgeon to dynamically balance soft tissue tensioning intraoperatively, with the goal of recreating natural knee kinematics. Clinical studies have shown that Mako Partial Knee has the potential to reproducibly deliver component placement that is accurate to the 3D patient-specific preoperative plans8,9, reduce damage to the surrounding soft tissue through AccuStop™ haptic technology10, and to help surgeons reestablish soft tissue balance using dynamic joint balancing.11
Mako SmartRobotics™
Global statistics through 2022
*Stryker’s 2022 sales data
1 million+
Mako procedures
performed globally to date*
Mako Systems installed in
42 countries
and every U.S. state*
18 years
of robotic-arm assisted surgery experience
425+
published, peer reviewed studies
1,500+
patents
and patent applications established globally
See Mako SmartRobotics™ in action!
Content IDs:
Mako SmartRobotics™ Global Statistics through 2022 PDF: JR-GSNPS-ANRT-575649
Mako SmartRobotics™ Video: MKOSYM-VA-68_Rev-1_28167
Mako Total Knee Procedural Video with Dr. Reid: MAKTKA-VA-76_33696
Mako Total Knee 4.0 Functional Hip Positioning Video: MKOTHA-VA-26_Rev-1_29203
Mako Partial Knee Planar workflow with Dr. Freedhand Video: MAKPKA-VA-32_Rev-1_21164
Mako Total Knee Clinical Summary: MAKTKA-BRO-7_Rev-3_32052
Mako Total Hip Clinical Summary: MKOTHA-BRO-4_Rev-3_32051 Mako
Partial Knee Clinical Summary: MAKPKA-CG-1_Rev-3_32050
References:
- Illgen, R, Bukowski, B, Abiola, R, Anderson, P, Chughtai, M, Khlopas, A, Mont, M. Robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty: Outcomes at minimum two year follow up. Surgical Technology International. 2017 July 25; 30:365-372.
- Kayani B, Konan S, Tahmassebi J, Pietrzak JRT, Haddad FS. Robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty is associated with improved early functional recovery and reduced time to hospital discharge compared with conventional jig-based total knee arthroplasty: a prospective cohort study. The Bone and Joint Journal. 2018;100-B:930-7.
- Kleeblad LJ, Borus T, Coon T, Dounchis J, Nguyen J, Pearle A. Midterm survivorship and patient satisfaction of robotic-arm assisted medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a multicenter study. The Journal of Arthroplasty. 2018:1-8.
- Kayani B, Konan S, Pietrzak JRT, Haddad FS. Iatrogenic bone and soft tissue trauma in robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty compared with conventional jig-based total knee arthroplasty: a prospective cohort study and validation of a new classification system. J Arthroplasty. 2018;33(8):2496-2501. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2018.03.042
- Hozack WJ. Multicentre analysis of outcomes after robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint J:Orthop Proc. 2018;100-B(Supp_12):38.
- Domb B, Redmond J, Louis S, Alden K, Daley R, LaReau J, et al. Accuracy of component positioning in 1980 total hip arthroplasties: a comparative analysis by surgical technique and mode of guidance. The Journal of Arthoplasty. 30(2015)2208-2218.
- Domb BG, El Bitar YF, Sadik AY, Stake CE, Botser IB. Comparison of robotic-assisted and conventional acetabular cup placement in THA: a matched-pair controlled study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472(1):329-336. doi:10.1007/s11999-013-3253-7
- Bell SW, Anthony I, Jones B, MacLean A, Rowe P, Blyth M. Improved accuracy of component positioning with robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: data from a prospective, randomized controlled study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016;98(8): 627-635. doi:10.2106/JBJS.15.00664
- Kayani B, Konan S, Pietrzak JRT, Huq SS, Tahmassebi J, Haddad FS. The learning curve associated with robotic-arm assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a prospective cohort study. Bone Joint J. 2018;100-B(8):1033-1042. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.100B8.BJJ-2018-0040.R1
- Hampp EL, Scholl L, Faizan A, Sodhi N, Mont MA, Westrich G. Comparison of Iatrogenic Soft Tissue Trauma in Robotic-Assisted versus Manual Partial Knee Arthroplasty [published online ahead of print, 2021 Aug 5]. Surg Technol Int. 2021;39:sti39/1465. doi:10.52198/21.STI.39.OS1465
- Catani F., Zambianchi F., Marcovigi A., Franceschi G., Nardacchione R. Component positioning and soft-tissue tensioning influence clinical outcomes of robotic-assisted medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a short-term follow-up study. Orthopaedic Proceedings Vol. 100-B, No. SUPP_12. Accessed online at https://online.boneandjoint.org.uk/doi/abs/10.1302/1358-992X.2018.12.003
JR-GSNPS-WEB-560950