Mako SmartRobotics™ Knee Replacement
Mako SmartRobotics™ Knee Replacement
Total knee replacements in the United States are expected to increase 189% by 2030,1 yet studies have shown that approximately 20% of patients are dissatisfied after conventional surgery.2 Mako Total Knee combines Stryker’s advanced robotic technology with its clinically successful Triathlon Total Knee System, which enables surgeons to have a more predictable surgical experience with increased precision and accuracy.3Mako SmartRobotics™ consists of three unique components – 3D CT-based planning, AccuStop™ haptic technology and insightful data analytics. In clinical studies, Mako Total Knee demonstrated the potential for patients to experience less pain, less need for opiate analgesics, less need for inpatient physical therapy, reduction in length of hospital stay, improved knee flexion and soft tissue protection in comparison to manual techniques.4,5 Click the links below for more information about each type of knee replacement surgery.
Why Choose Mako SmartRobotics™?
Mako SmartRobotics™ for Total Knee has been associated with less pain, less need for opiate analgesics, less need for inpatient physical therapy, reduction in length of hospital stay, improved knee flexion and soft tissue protection in comparison to manual techniques.7,9
Mako Total Knee combines Stryker’s advanced robotic technology with its clinically successful Triathlon Total Knee System, which enables surgeons to have a more predictable surgical experience with increased accuracy.9,10
The Mako Total Knee application was designed based on the clinically successful Mako Partial Knee and Mako Total Hip applications. Mako Robotic- Arm Assisted Surgery enables surgeons to have a more predictable surgical experience and offers them a leadership advantage in our evolving healthcare environment.
Learn More About Your Surgery
All surgery carries risk. See your orthopaedic surgeon to discuss your potential benefits and risks. Not all patients will have the same post-operative recovery and activity level. Individual results vary.
IMPORTANT INFORMATION
Knee Replacements Knee replacement is intended for use in individuals with joint disease resulting from degenerative, rheumatoid and post-traumatic arthritis, and for moderate deformity of the knee. Knee replacement surgery is not appropriate for patients with certain types of infections, any mental or neuromuscular disorder which would create an unacceptable risk of prosthesis instability, prosthesis fixation failure or complications in postoperative care, compromised bone stock, skeletal immaturity, severe instability of the joint, or excessive body weight. Like any surgery, joint replacement surgery has serious risks which include, but are not limited to, pain, infection, bone fracture, change in the treated leg length (hip), joint stiffness, hip joint fusion, amputation, peripheral neuropathies (nerve damage), circulatory compromise (including deep vein thrombosis (blood clots in the legs)), genitourinary disorders (including kidney failure), gastrointestinal disorders (including paralytic ileus (loss of intestinal digestive movement)), vascular disorders (including thrombus (blood clots), blood loss, or changes in blood pressure or heart rhythm), bronchopulmonary disorders (including emboli, stroke or pneumonia), heart attack, and death.Implant related risks which may lead to a revision of the implant include dislocation, loosening, fracture, nerve damage, heterotopic bone formation (abnormal bone growth in tissue), wear of the implant, metal and/or foreign body sensitivity, soft tissue imbalance, osteolysis (localized progressive bone loss), audible sounds during motion, reaction to particle debris, and reaction to metal ions (ALTR). Hip and knee implants may not provide the same feel or performance characteristics experienced with a normal healthy joint. The information presented is for educational purposes only. Speak to your doctor to decide if joint replacement surgery is appropriate for you. Individual results vary and not all patients will return to the same activity level. The lifetime of any joint replacement is limited and depends on several factors like patient weight and activity level. Your doctor will counsel you about strategies to potentially prolong the lifetime of the device, including avoiding high-impact activities, such as running, as well as maintaining a healthy weight. It is important to closely follow your doctor’s instructions regarding post-surgery activity, treatment and follow-up care. Ask your doctor if a joint replacement is right for you.
REFERENCES:
1. AAOS. Projected volume of primary and revision total joint replacement in the U.S. 2030 to 2060. http://aaos-annualmeeting-presskit.org/2018/research-news/sloan_tjr/. Accessed May 9, 2018.
2. Bourne RB, Chesworth BM, Davis AM, Mahomed NN, Charron KDJ. Patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty: who is satisfied and who is not? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 468(1):57-63. doi:10.1007/s11999-009-1119-9.
3. 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. Poster presented at: 32nd Annual Congress of the International Society for Technology in Arthroplasty (ISTA); October 2-5, 2019; Toronto, Canada.
4. 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. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.100B7.BJJ-2017-1449.R1
5. 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
6. Hozack WJ. Multicentre analysis of outcomes after robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint J:Orthop Proc. 2018;100-B(Supp_12):3
7. 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
8. Hozack WJ. Multicentre analysis of outcomes after robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint J:Orthop Proc. 2018;100-B(Supp_12):38.
9. 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. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.100B7.BJJ-2017-1449.R1
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. Poster presented at: 32nd Annual Congress of the International Society for Technology in Arthroplasty (ISTA); October 2-5, 2019; Toronto, Canada.
11. Kolisek FR, Chugtai M, Mistry JB, et al. Outcomes of second-generation tapered wedge femoral stem. Surg Technol Int. 2016;28:275-279.
12. AAOS. Projected volume of primary and revision total joint replacement in the U.S. 2030 to 2060. http://aaos-annualmeeting-presskit.org/2018/research-news/sloan_tjr/. Accessed May 9, 2018.
13. Bourne RB, Chesworth BM, Davis AM, Mahomed NN, Charron KDJ. Patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty: who is satisfied and who is not? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 468(1):57-63. doi:10.1007/s11999-009-1119-9.
14. Stryker sales data.
15. Khlopas A, Chughtai M, Hampp EL, et al. Robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty demonstrated soft tissue protection. Surg Technol Int. 2017;30:441-446.
16. Illgen RL, Bukowski BR, Abiola R, et al. Robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty: outcomes at minimum two year follow up. Surg Technol Int. 2017;30:365-372.
17. Kleeblad LJ, Borus T, Coon TM, Dounchis J, Nguyen JT, Pearle AD. Midterm survivorship and patient satisfaction of robotic-arm-assisted medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a multicenter study. J Arthroplasty. 2018;33(6):1719-1726. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2018.01.036.