The next generation of Mako is here.
We’re proud to introduce Mako 4, our fourth generation of surgical robotics. Mako 4 serves more patients, more surgeons, across more specialties and more procedures.
Mako total knee, Mako total hip, Mako partial knee and Mako spine. One system. More procedures*
Mako SmartRobotics™ combines 3D CT-based planning and AccuStop™ haptic technology into one system which has demonstrated enhanced outcomes for primary total hip, total knee and partial knee patients compared to manual surgery. 4,5,6
Our latest application, Mako Spine, is designed to simplify planning and performance and give surgeons confidence to execute procedures to plan. Learn more about Mako Spine.
With more than 2 million Mako procedures** performed around the world, including in 45 countries and in every U.S. state over the last 19 years, you can trust Stryker to be your partner in surgical robotics.
*More procedures refers to Mako Technology in more applications and more indications.
**Stryker’s internal data on file 2025
2M+
High patient demand.
Over 2 million patients searched for Mako in 2024 alone.***
500+
Tested and trusted.1,2,3
Mako has been the subject of over 500 peer-reviewed published manuscripts.***
1,500
patents
And patent applications established globally***
72%
of adult recon fellows have access to Mako at a facility during their rotations.
Many teaching institutions have integrated Mako into their training programs.*** Don’t fall behind attracting future talent.
*** Stryker’s internal data on file 2024
“Stryker has a unique portfolio of financing options that in this day and age have become incredibly important.”
Marty Rosenberg, Carmel, IN
CEO Forté Sports Medicine and Orthopedics
Marty Rosenberg is a paid consultant of Stryker. The opinions expressed by Marty Rosenberg are those of Marty Rosenberg and not necessarily those of Stryker. Individual experiences may vary.
3D CT-based planning
AccuStopTM haptic technology
Greater precision to plan2,3,7
Compared to manual total knee, primary total hip and partial knee procedures
Improved outcomes4,5,6
Compared to manual total knee, primary total hip and partial knee procedures
Increased patient satisfaction6,8,9
Compared to manual total knee, primary total hip and partial knee procedures
See Mako in action
Knee and primary hip replacement surgery carried out with Mako SmartRoboticsTM has been associated with several health economic benefits.
Studies have shown that surgery time with Mako can be time neutral10,11,12 and that patients may have a shorter length of stay,13,14,15 require less health resources15,16,17 and are less likely to be readmitted for further care18,19,20 compared to manual knee and primary hip replacement patients.
Hear from your peers.
“Mako SmartRobotics™ has enabled Dosher to help improve the quality of life of our local community by providing access to the most innovative solution for joint replacement surgery.”
Lynda Stanley, FACHE
President & CEO, Dosher Memorial Hospital
Southport, NC
The opinions expressed by Lynda Stanley are those of Lynda Stanley and not necessarily those of Stryker. Individual experiences may vary.
“Mako SmartRoboticsTM has revolutionized my practice and changed the results of my patients.”
Kirby Hitt, M.D.
Orthopaedic Surgeon
Temple, TX
Dr. Kirby Hitt’s experience on his transition from manual joint replacement techniques to using Mako SmartRoboticsTM.Dr. Hitt is a paid consultant of Stryker. The opinions expressed by Dr. Hitt are those of Dr. Hitt and not necessarily those of Stryker. Individual experiences may vary.
Interested in learning about options for bringing Mako to your facility?
Fill out the form below and a regional Mako account executive will contact you. We will walk through clinical outcomes, financing options and your market landscape.
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. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.101B1.BJJ-2018-0377.R1
- 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
- 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. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.103B6.BJJ-2020-2003.R1
- 4. 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.
- Sicat CS, Buchalter DB, Luthringer TA, 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. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2022.02.038
- Cool CL, Needham KA, Khlopas A, Mont MA. Revision analysis of robotic arm-assisted and manual unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2019;34(5):926-931. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2019.01.018
- Domb BG, Redmond JM, Louis SS, et al. Accuracy of Component Positioning in 1980 Total Hip Arthroplasties: A Comparative Analysis by Surgical Technique and Mode of Guidance. J Arthroplasty. 2015;30(12):2208 2218. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2015.06.059
- Grau L, Lingamfelter M, Ponzio D, et al. Robotic arm assisted total knee arthroplasty workflow optimization, operative times and learning curve. Arthroplasty Today. 2019;5(4):465-470.
- Heng YY, Gunaratne R, Ironside C, Taheri A (2018) Conventional vs Robotic Arm Assisted Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA) Surgical Time, Transfusion rates, Length of Stay, Complications and Learning Curve. J Arthritis 7: 272. doi:10.4172/2167-7921.1000272
- 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.
- Cool CL, Jacofsky DJ, Seeger KA, Sodhi N, Mont MA. A 90-day episode-of-care cost analysis of robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty. J Comp Eff Res. 2019;8(5):327-336.
- Fontalis A, Wignadasan W, Mancino F, et al. Factors associated with decreased length of stay following robotic arm-assisted and conventional total hip arthroplasty. Bone Joint J. 2024;106-B(3 Supple A):24-30.
- 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.
- Ong KL, Coppolecchia A, Chen Z, Watson HN, Jacofsky D, Mont MA. Robotic-Arm Assisted Total Knee Arthroplasty: Cost Savings Demonstrated at One Year. Clinico Econ Outcomes Res. 2022;14:309-318.
- Rajesh DA, et al. Length of Stay and Discharge Disposition After Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Large Multicenter Propensity Matched Comparison of Robotic-Assisted and Manual Techniques. J Arthroplasty. 2024;39(9S1):S117-S123.
- Malkani AL, Roche MW, Kolisek FR, et al. Manipulation Under Anesthesia Rates in Technology-Assisted versus Conventional-Instrumentation Total Knee Arthroplasty. Surg Technol Int. 2020;36:336-340.
- Bendich I, Vigdorchik JM, Sharma AK, et al. Robotic Assistance for Posterior Approach Total Hip Arthroplasty Is Associated With Lower Risk of Revision for Dislocation When Compared to Manual Techniques. J Arthroplasty. 2022;37(6):1124-1129
- Cool CL, Needham KA, Khlopas A, Mont MA. Revision Analysis of Robotic Arm-Assisted and Manual Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2019;34(5):926-931
JR-GSNPS-SYK-1175373_REV-1