Mako Partial Knee
Let's talk SmartRobotics™
Mako Partial Knee with the Restoris MCK implant system helps enable surgeons 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,1,2 reduce damage to the surrounding soft tissue through AccuStop™ haptic technology3 and to help surgeons reestablish soft tissue balance using dynamic joint balancing.4
Mako Partial Knee
Let's talk SmartRobotics™
Mako Partial Knee with the Restoris MCK implant system helps enable surgeons 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,1,2 reduce damage to the surrounding soft tissue through AccuStop™ haptic technology3 and to help surgeons reestablish soft tissue balance using dynamic joint balancing.4
Know more. Cut less.5,6
Know more. Mako Partial Knee's 3D CT-based plan allows you to plan for each patient’s unique anatomy, so you know more.
Additionally, Mako Partial Knee helps enable surgeons to dynamically balance soft tissue tensioning intraoperatively, with the goal of recreating natural knee kinematics.
Cut less.5,6 Using AccuStop™ haptic technology and everything the CT scan helps you to know about your patient, you are no longer limited by cutting blocks and manual techniques. AccuStop™ haptic technology creates a virtual boundary that assists you in executing both the tibial and femoral bone resections to plan. So you can cut less.
Mako Partial Knee features
dynamic joint balancing
- Mako Partial Knee helps enable the surgeon to dynamically balance soft tissue tensioning intraoperatively, with the goal of recreating natural knee kinematics.
- Studies have shown that Mako Partial Knee has the potential to:
- Reproducibly deliver component placement that is accurate to the 3D patient-specific preoperative plans1,2
- Reduce damage to the surrounding soft tissue through AccuStop™ haptic technology, based on a cadaveric study3
- Help surgeons reestablish soft tissue balance using dynamic joint balancing4
Not all robotics are the same.
Mako Partial Knee
shows 46% reduction in risk of revision.7
In the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry 2025 Annual Report the Restoris MCK implanted with Mako Partial Knee shows a 46% reduction in risk of revision over nine years when compared to aggregated Other Unicompartmental Knees*
(Hazard Ratio, adjusted for age and gender Restoris MCK/Restoris MCK vs Other Unicompartmental Knee. Entire Period: HR=0.54 (0.49, 0.60),p<0.001).
*Which includes all unicompartmental knee procedures, including those with technology assistance, computer navigation and no technology assistance combined.
Over 10 years of clinical success
At a mean follow-up of 11.1 years, patients who underwent medial partial knee arthroplasty displayed the following:
Survivorship rate of 96.4%8
4.4 out of 5 satisfied or very satisfied8
Excellent Forgotten Joint Score of 82.28
88.8% of patients achieved Patient Acceptable Symptoms State8
In clinical studies, Mako Partial Knee has demonstrated:
Greater precision to plan
Multiple studies of Mako Partial Knees have demonstrated improved accuracy of component position when compared to manually implanted partial knees.1,9
Improved outcomes
Studies comparing Mako Partial Knee to both manual and total knee surgeries have shown improvements in objectiveand subjective functional outcomes.10,12-14
Reduced risk of revision
Registry data reports 45% lower risk of revision for the Restoris MCK compared to aggregated ‘Other Unicompartmental Knee*’ (Hazard Ratio=0.55 (0.49, 0.61),p<0.001)7
Less pain
Multiple studies have demonstrated a significant reduction in postoperativepain with Mako Partial Knees when compared to manual partial knees.10,11
Shorter length of hospital stay
A study found Mako Partial Knee was associated with a 40.2% reduction in time to discharge compared to manual partial knee, averaging 28 hours faster (42.5 vs. 71.1 hours, p<0.001).10
High ten-year survival rates
Studies report ten-year survival rates between 93% - 100% 8,15-16
*Which includes all unicompartmental knee procedures, including those with technology assistance, computer navigation and no technology assistance combined.
Mako Partial Knee journey
19+
Years of Mako Partial
Knee surgery
experience*
240k+
Mako Partial Knee
procedures*
Mako Systems installed in
45 countries
and every U.S. state
Restoris MCK partial knee implant
The Restoris MCK partial knee implant system, used with Mako Partial Knee, is designed from over 100 CT scans to fit a broad spectrum of knee anatomies across different sizes and genders.5 The combination supports the restoration of native knee kinematics and aims to enhance patient outcomes.11,17,18
Bone-sparing, curved design
The implant designs feature bone-sparing, curved surfaces enabled by Mako robotic-arm assistance allowing surgeons to create anatomic, sculpted resections using either the burr-only or planar workflow for bone preparation.5
Targeted solutions for multiple disease states
Restoris MCK offers a solution for patients suffering from osteoarthritis in one or more compartments of the knee: medial unicompartmental, lateral unicompartmental, patellofemoral and medial bicompartmental.
Medial, Lateral, Patellofemoral, Bicompartmental
Your next step in learning with Stryker starts here.
Visit Stryker’s Training Academy, your on-demand digital platform, to explore a comprehensive library of easily accessible and searchable educational content on Stryker products and technologies.
- Available to U.S. healthcare professionals with an NPI
JR-OTH-SYK-2191506
Request more info
Send us a message to learn more about Mako Partial Knee and Restoris MCK
This contact form is intended for healthcare professionals. If you’re a patient looking to contact us, please go here.
Thank you!
References:
- 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
- Banks SA. Haptic robotics enable a systems approach to design of a minimally invasive modular knee arthroplasty. Am J Orthop. 2009;38 (2 Suppl): 23-27.
- Hampp E, Chang T-C, Pearle A. Robotic partial knee arthroplasty demonstrated greater bone preservation compared to robotic total knee arthroplasty. Presented at:Orthopaedic Research Society Annual Meeting; February 2-5, 2019; Austin, TX
- Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry Automated Industry Report 19267. Restoris MCK/Restoris MCK Unicompartmental Knee. Report Generated: 24th June 2025. Data Period: 1 September 1999 - 23rd June 2025
- Zambianchi F, Seracchioli S, Franceschi G, Cuoghi Costantini R, Malatesta A, Barbo G, Catani F. 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 Dec;31(12):5477-5484. doi: 10.1007/s00167-023-07599-2. Epub 2023 Oct 9. PMID: 37814136.
- 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. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.104B5.BJJ-2021-1506.R1
- 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. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.101B1.BJJ-2018-0564.R2
- 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 randomised controlled trial. Bone Joint Res. 2017;6(11):631-639. doi:10.1302/2046-3758.611.BJR-2017-0060.R1
- 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. doi:10.1016/j.gaitpost.2018.02.029
- Brilliant ZR, Garvey MD, Haffner R, Chiu YF, Mayman DJ, Blevins JL. Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty Patients Have Lower Joint Awareness and Higher Function at 5 Years Compared to Total Knee Arthroplasties: A Matched Comparison [published online ahead of print, 2023 Feb 9]. J Arthroplasty. 2023;S0883-5403(23)00084-0. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2023.01.063
- 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. doi:10.1302/2046-3758.91.BJR-2019-0147.R1
- Blyth MJG, Clement ND, Choo XY, Doonan J, MacLean A, Jones BG. Robotic arm-assisted medial compartment knee arthroplasty is a cost-effective intervention at ten-year follow-up. Bone Joint J. 2025;107-B(1):72-80
- 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.
- Kleeblad LJ, Borus T. Coon TM, Dounchis J. Nguyen JT, Pearle AD.,Midterm survivorship and patient satisfaction of robotic-arm assistedmedial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a multicenter study. JArthroplasty. 2018: 33(6):1719-1726. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2018.01.036
- Millar LJ, Banger M, Rowe PJ, Blyth M, Jones B, Maclean A. Afive-year follow up of gait in robotic assisted vs conventional unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Gait & Posture. 2018; In press:https://doi.org/10.1016/j. gaitpost.2018.06.035
JR-MPKA-SYK-2093692