Mako 4 means More
One system. More innovation.
Our Mako SmartRobotics™ platform serves surgeons and patients. Mako 4, our next generation of Mako, means more innovation than before. Let us show you all the possibilities.
Mako Total Hip
Mako Total Hip has demonstrated...
- Accurate restoration of center of rotation1
- Accurate implant orientation1-2
- More normal feeling hip3
- Reduced dislocation rates4-5
Compared to manual total hip.
Mako Total Knee
Mako Total Knee has demonstrated...
- Greater accuracy and precision to plan6
- Less postoperative pain and use of fewer meds7-8
- Improved early recovery7,9
- Improved survivorship10
Compared to manual total knee.
Mako Partial Knee
Mako Partial Knee has demonstrated...
- Greater precision to plan11-12
- Less postoperative pain and fewer complications13-15
- Improved outcomes16-18
- Improved survivorship10,19-20
Compared to manual partial knee.
Mako SmartRobotics™
Global statistics* through 2025
2 million+
Mako procedures
have been performed across the globe*
45+ countries
Mako Systems installed in over 45 countries
19 years
of robotic-arm assisted surgery experience
500+
published, peer reviewed studies
1,500+
patents
and patent applications established globally
* Stryker's internal data on file 2025
Discover SmartRobotics™
Combines key components of 3D CT-based planning and AccuStop™ haptic technology, into one platform which has demonstrated enhanced outcomes for total hip, total knee and partial knee patients compared to manual surgery.7,13,21
?$max_width_1440$ "Mako 4 System with Mako Total Knee software and the Q Guidance System")
Introducing the latest advancements in SmartRobotics™
Three applications in a single system
Mako Total Knee
The unique features of Mako Total Knee SmartRobotics™ are designed to help you optimize Triathlon component positioning and enhance functional outcomes.7 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,22 less soft tissue damage22 and greater bone preservation when compared to manual cutting blocks.23
Mako Total Hip
Enhance your Mako Total Hip experience through patient-specific planning to enable more accurate implant positioning to plan when compared to traditional techniques.24 Surgeons can visualize 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 to plan.25
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 plans,11,26 to reduce damage to the surrounding soft tissue through AccuStop™ haptic technology,27 and to help surgeons reestablish soft tissue balance using dynamic joint balancing.28
More innovation to help improve your experience
Mako 4
One system. More innovation.
The latest advancement in SmartRobotics™ is here. Our fourth generation Mako is a single system that delivers more innovation than before, designed to offer a premium clinical and operational experience when compared to manual surgery across Mako Total Hip, Total Knee and Partial Knee.
Are you ready for more?
Integrated with Stryker's Q Guidance System
Mako 4 integrates Stryker’s Q Guidance System which is built on over 20 years of experience developing guidance technologies. In addition to Mako SmartRobotics, the versatility of the Q Guidance System helps to streamline our technologies across knee, hip and spine indications.
Q Guidance System display monitors
Large display monitor for enhanced intraoperative visibility designed to improve user experience.
FP8000 camera
Our proprietary FP8000 camera features a wide field of view for enhanced probe and array visibility.
Small OR footprint
Space-efficient design for ease of transport, setup and turnover.
Integrated technologies
MICS 3
Built on the legacy of Stryker’s System 9 power tools, the MICS 3 handpiece, attachments and blades are designed for an enhanced cutting experience in your Total Knee, Partial Knee and Total Hip procedures.
Learn more about Mako 4 and download the brochure.
This contact form is intended for healthcare professionals.
Thank you!
References:
- Kayani B, Konan S, Thakrar RR, Huq SS, Haddad FS. Assuring the long-term total joint arthroplasty: a triad of variables. Bone Joint J.2019;101-B(1_Supple_A):11-18.2.
- Sicat CS, Buchalter DB, LuthringerTA, Schwarzkopf R, Vigdorchik JM. Intraoperative Technology Use Improves Accuracy of Functional Safe Zone Targeting in Total Hip Arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty.2022;37(7S):S540-S545.3.
- Clement ND, Gaston P, Bell A, et al. Robotic arm-assisted versus manual total hip arthroplasty. Bone Joint Res. 2021;10(1):22-30.4.
- Bendich I, Vigdorchik JM, Sharma AK, et al.Robotic Assistance for Posterior Approach TotalHip Arthroplasty Is Associated With Lower Riskof Revision for Dislocation When Compared to Manual Techniques. J Arthroplasty.2022;37(6):1124-1129.
- Shaw JH, Rahman TM, Wesemann LD,Z Jiang C, G Lindsay-Rivera K, Davis JJ. Comparison of Postoperative Instability and Acetabular Cup Positioning in Robotic-Assisted Versus Traditional Total Hip Arthroplasty. JArthroplasty. 2022;37(8S):S881-S889.
- Deckey DG, Rosenow CS, Verhey JT, et al. Robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty improves accuracy and precision compared to conventional techniques. Bone Joint J.2021;103-B(6 Supple A):74-80.
- 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. Bone Joint J. 2018;100-B(7):930-937.
- Bhimani SJ, Bhimani R, Smith A, Eccles C, Smith L, Malkani A. Robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty demonstrates decreased postoperative pain and opioid usage compared to conventional total knee arthroplasty. Bone Jt Open. 2020;1(2):8-12. Published 2020 Oct 27.
- Marchand RC, Scholl L, Taylor KB, et al. Clinical Outcomes after Computed Tomography-Based Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Minimum 3-YearAnalyses. J Knee Surg. 2023;36(14):1462-1466.
- Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. Hip, Knee &Shoulder Arthroplasty 2024 ANNUAL REPORT.
- 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):627-63.
- Zhang J, Ng N, Scott CEH, et al. Robotic arm-assisted versus manual unicompartmental knee arthroplasty : a systematic review and meta-analysis of the MAKO robotic system. Bone Joint J. 2022;104-B(5):541-548.
- Kayani B, Konan S, Tahmassebi J, Rowan FE, Haddad FS. An assessment of early functional rehabilitation and hospital discharge in conventional versus robotic-arm assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a prospective cohort study. Bone Joint J.2019;101-B(1):24-33.
- Blyth MJG, Anthony I, Rowe P, Banger MS, MacLean A, Jones B. Robotic arm-assisted versus conventional unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: Exploratory secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial. Bone Joint Res.2017;6(11):631-639.
- Banger M, Doonan J, Rowe P, Jones B, MacLean A, Blyth MJB. Robotic arm-assisted versus conventional medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: five-year clinical outcomes of a randomized controlled trial. Bone Joint J.2021;103-B(6):1088-1095.
- Motesharei A, Rowe P, Blyth M, Jones B, Maclean A. A comparison of gait one year post operation in an RCT of robotic UKA versus traditional Oxford UKA. Gait Posture.2018;62:41-45.
- Brilliant ZR, Garvey MD, Haffner R, Chiu YF, Mayman DJ, Blevins JL. Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty Patients Have Lower Joint Awareness and Higher Function at five-years Compared to Total Knee Arthroplasties: A Matched Comparison. J Arthroplasty.2023;S0883-5403(23)00084-0.
- Clement ND, Bell A, Simpson P, Macpherson G, Patton JT, Hamilton DF. Robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty has a greater early functional outcome when compared to manual total knee arthroplasty for isolated medial compartment arthritis. Bone Joint Res.2020;9(1):15-22. Published 2020 May 16.
- Bayoumi T, Kleeblad LJ, Borus TA, et al. Ten-Year Survivorship and Patient Satisfaction Following Robotic-Arm-Assisted Medial Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: A Prospective Multicenter Study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2023;105(12):933-942.
- Zambianchi F, Seracchioli S, Franceschi G, et al. Image-based robotic-arm assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty provides high survival and good-to-excellent clinical outcomes at minimum 10 years follow-up. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc.2023;31(12):5477-5484.
- Domb BG, Chen JW, Lall AC, Perets I, Maldonado DR. Minimum 5-Year Outcomes of Robotic-assisted Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty With a Nested Comparison Against Manual Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Propensity Score-Matched Study. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2020 Oct 15;28(20):847-856. doi: 10.5435/JAAOS-D-19-00328. PMID: 32109923.
- 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
- 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-MKOSYM-SYK-2455050