What if joint replacement surgery could do more for surgeons and their patients? Learn how Mako SmartRobotics™ is helping surgeons know more, see more and do more than ever before.
Achieving better outcomes for patients often begins by asking, “What if?” What if we could make healthcare smarter? What if we could be more precise? What if every procedure was as unique as the patient receiving it? With the advancement of robotic-arm assisted surgery, we’re not just finding the answers. We’re creating them.
Mako SmartRobotics™ is revolutionizing the way doctors perform total hip, total knee and partial knee replacements.
Don Payerle, President, Joint Replacement at Stryker, elaborated: ”We couldn’t be more thrilled to hit the milestone of 500,000 Mako procedures and helping that many patients get back to what they love doing.”
One of those procedures was performed on Robert Malitz, who found himself in pain after years of raising kids, hiking and playing tennis. A visit to an orthopaedic specialist confirmed that Robert had arthritis in his knee and that he was a candidate for total knee replacement. After discussing the benefits and risks of surgery with his doctor, Robert decided to undergo a Mako Total Knee replacement.
The power of SmartRoboticsTM.
Total knee replacements in the United States are expected to increase 673% by 2030,1 yet studies have shown that approximately 30% of patients are dissatisfied after conventional surgery.2 Similarly, 22% of conventional total hip patients have rated their satisfaction for their total hip procedure as 3 or less out of 5 (n=14,500).3,4 This is where Mako SmartRobotics™ can help make a difference.
The information Mako’s CT-based planning provides helps a surgeon know more about their patient and the procedure—meaning they know more with Mako.
Specifically, the CT scan allows a surgeon to see a patient’s individual anatomy, including osteophytes, cysts and bone defects. This knowledge of the patient’s anatomy can give surgeons more confidence to perform difficult cases, enabling them to achieve functional implant positioning through executing their plan with precision and accuracy.8,9,10
Mako’s AccuStop™ haptic technology incorporates the information from a patient’s personalized CT-based plan and enables surgeons to cut less, by cutting precisely what they’ve planned.11,12,13,14 This has demonstrated less soft tissue damage in Mako Total Knee surgeries12,13 and greater bone preservation in Mako Total Knee, Total Hip, and Partial Knee surgeries.11,12,13,14
Robert Cohen, President, Digital, Robotics, and Enabling Technologies, commented on the Mako difference for each of the three applications: “A recent study comparing Mako Total Knee Surgery using Stryker’s implants with manual surgery and manual instruments concluded that patients performed better [and] had improved outcomes, like less pain, less opioid use, shorter length of stay in the hospital, and less physical therapy sessions.6 And, in a minimum 5-year outcomes propensity score matched study, Mako Total Hip showed more favorable outcomes and more accurate placement in the safe zone,15 while Mako Partial Knee demonstrated 98% survivorship at 10-year follow-up.”16
It’s amazing to see what Mako is doing. But innovation can always be pushed further, which is why we’ll never stop asking “What if?”
1. Kurtz AAOS. Total knee and hip replacement projections 2030. www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/total-kneeand- hip-replacement-surgery projections-show-meteoric-rise-by-2030-55519727.html. Accessed July 4, 2016.
2. Christiaan Keurentjes J, Fiocco M, So-Osman C, et al. Patients with severe radiographic osteoarthritis have better prognosis in physical functioning after hip and knee replacement: a cohort-study. PLOS One. 2013; 8(4): 1-8.
3. PROMS, NHS Digital, 2019.
4. Clement et al. Robotic-arm assisted versus manual total hip arthroplasty: a propensity score matched cohort study. Bone Joint Res. 2021: 10(1): 22-30.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Burger JA, Kleeblad LJ, Laas N, Pearle AD. Mid-term survivorship and patient-reported outcomes of robotic-arm assisted partial knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint J. 2020;102-B(1):108-116.
8. Anthony I, Bell SW, Blyth M, Jones B et al. Improved accuracy of component positioning with robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016;98-A(8):627-35.
9. 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.
10. Mahoney O, Kinsey T, Mont M, Hozack W, Orozco F, Chen A. Can computer generated 3D bone models improve the accuracy of total knee component placement compared to manual instrumentation: a prospective multi-center evaluation? International Society for Technology in Arthroplasty 32nd Annual Congress. Toronto, Canada. October 2-5, 2019.
11. Suarez-Ahedo, C; Gui, C; Martin, T; Chandrasekaran, S; Domb, B. Robotic arm assisted total hip arthroplasty results in smaller acetabular cup size in relation to the femoral head size: A Matched-Pair Controlled Study. Hip Int. 2017; 27 (2): 147-152.
12. Haddad, F.S, et al. 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 Aug;33(8):2496-2501. Epub 2018 Mar 27.
13. Hozack, W, Chen, A, Khlopas, A, Mahoney, O, Mont, M, Murray, T, Orozco, F, Higuera Rueda, C, Stearns, K. Multicenter Analysis of Outcomes after Robotic-Arm Assisted Total Knee Arthroplasty. American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons Annual Meeting. Las Vegas, NV. March 12-16, 2019.
14. Banks, Scott A, PhD. Haptic Robotics Enable a Systems Approach to Design of a Minimally Invasive Modular Knee Arthroplasty. Am J Orthop. 2009;38(2 suppl):23-27. February 2009.
15. 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. Accepted manuscript. Published online February 25, 2020. doi:10.5435/JAAOS-D-19-00328.
16. Vakharia RM, Law TY, Roche MW. Survivorship and patient satisfaction rates of robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Presented at: American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons (AAHKS) Annual Meeting; November 5-8, 2020; Dallas, TX.
MKOSYM-COM-84_29652 SYK CORP 2021-05-41