It seems like you are using an older browser, please update your browser for a better user experience.

Stryker Mako Robotic-Arm Assisted Surgery

Knee EffectorKnee Effector

Mako Robotic-Arm Assisted Surgery

Stryker acquired MAKO Surgical Corporation, a pioneer in the advancement of robotic- arm assisted surgery in orthopaedics, in December of 2013. Stryker’s Mako robotic-arm assisted reconstructive surgery is transforming orthopaedics, combining Stryker’s market-leading implants with Mako’s proprietary robotic-arm technology.

Over 50,000 Mako hip and knee procedures have been performed since 2006.

Key benefits include:

• CT derived, patient-specific 3-D modeling enables accurate planning of implant size, orientation and alignmentpreoperatively.1

• Real-time intra-operative adjustments allow for more correct knee kinematics and soft-tissue balance prior toresection.2

• Has been shown to provide excellent accuracy and precision with regard to planned cup position, leg length, andoffset.3

• Allows single stage reaming for the hip.4

The Mako platform is supported by significant primary clinical research, including more than 50 peer reviewed clinical publications, over 300 scientific abstracts, and numerous ongoing clinical studies, including a level 1 RCT, resulting in these key findings:

• Mako UKA resulted in 1% Revision Rate and 92% Patient Satisfaction at two Years.5

• Mako robotic-arm assisted UKA resulted in lower pain and more accurate implant placement than manual UKA in a randomized control trial.6

• Mako robotic-arm assisted THA resulted in higher Harris Hip Scores and higher UCLA Activity Scores compared to manual THA at minimum one-year follow-up.7



References

1. Robot Assisted Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: The MAKO Experience. Roche M. Clin Sports Med. January 2014; 33 (1): 123-32.

2. Intra-Operative Assessment of the Soft Tissue Envelope is Integral to the Planning of UKA Components. Roche MW, Branch S, Lightcap C, Conditt MA. World Arthroplasty Congress, April 15-18, 2015, Paris, France.

3. Accuracy of Cup Positioning and Achieving Desired Hip Length and Offset Following Robotic THA. Jerabek SA; Carroll KM; Maratt JD; Mayman DJ; Padgett DE. 14th Annual CAOS Meeting, June 18-21, 2014, Milan, Italy.

4. Robotic Arm Assisted THA Improved Accuracy, Reproducibility, and Outcomes Compared to Conventional Technique. Illgen R. 43rd Annual Course: Advances in Arthroplasty, October 22-25, 2013, Boston, MA.

5. Short to Mid Term Survivorship of Robotically Assisted UKA: A Multicenter Study. Coon T, Roche M, Pearle A, Dounchis J, Borus T, Buechel Jr F. ISTA 27thAnnual Congress, Sept. 24-27, 2014, Kyoto, Japan.

6. Accuracy of UKA Implant Positioning and Early Clinical Outcomes in a RCT Comparing Robotic Assisted and Manual Surgery. Blyth MJ; Jones B; MacLean A; Anthony I; Rowe P; 13th Annual CAOS Meeting, June 12-15, 2013, Orlando, FL, USA.

7. Outcomes After Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty: Manual Compared with Robotic-Assisted Techniques. Bukowski, B.; Abiola, R; Illgen R. 44th Annual Advances in Arthroplasty; Cambridge, MA. October 7-10 2014.