Mako PKA

While partial knee replacement accounts for less than 10% of all knee arthroplasty performed, studies have indicated the incidence could be 20% or more depending on timing of surgery with the disease process9.  Over 1,000 Mako robotic-arm assisted partial knee procedures have been performed in Australia since introduction in 2015.

Features & Benefits

Features & Benefits

Patient Specific Pre-Operative Planning

A 3D model of the patient’s anatomy is generated from a pre-operative CT Scan. This offers a virtual view of the entire joint from all angles. This virtual model is used to plan the initial implant size, orientation, and alignment to create a patient specific 3D preoperative surgical plan. The plan is reviewed and approved by the surgeon pre-operatively.

Functional Implant Positioning1

Intra-operatively surgeons make changes to the patient specific pre-operative plans to optimise the implant placement based on joint function. The ability to intra-operatively fine tune the planned implant placement accommodates hard and soft tissue anatomy for optimised implant articulation and ligament balancing.

In the Mako Partial Knee application surgeons passively correct the limb alignment and the Mako system collects data regarding how the implants are articulating through the patient’s range of motion. The distance between the pre-planning implants is shown on a graph and fine adjustments are made to balance the soft tissues before any bone resection is made. The alignment of the implants is shown and components can be adjusted to centre the femoral component on the tibial baseplate to avoid edge loading. Surgeons can also map the articular cartilage to determine the thickness and ensure a smooth transition from cartilage to implant.

Robotic-Arm Assisted Execution2,3

Mako robotic-arm assistance allows for accurate and reproducible execution of the patient specific plan. Bone resection is controlled within a pre-defined resection volume and provides 3D visualisation of patient anatomy and real time resection progress. Power to the motor is only active when within the planned resection area. The system offers tactile, visual, and auditory feedback to the surgeon and will cut off power to the end effector if it is forced past the boundary.

  • Tactile - Robotic arm forces the surgeon to stay within resection area through the use of a haptic boundary
  • Visual - green, white, red virtual bone colors indicate progress to execute the plan
  • Auditory – Sound is made when the cutting burr is at the resection boundary

A single 6mm burr is used to sculpt the bone to accurately fit the contours of the Mako MCK implants. Surgeons manually place the components once bone resection is complete and can verify that they have executed the patient specific plan.

Mako MCK Multicompartmental Knee System

Mako MCK Multicompartmental Knee System

The Mako MCK family of partial knee implants are specifically designed for Stryker’s Robotic-Arm Assisted Surgery procedures, which enable the treatment of one or two compartments of the osteoarthritic knee.

Mako MCK Multicompartmental Knee System offers an alternative solution for patients suffering osteoarthritis in one of more compartments of the knee – medial, patellofemoral, lateral or bicompartmental. As such, the Mako MCK System consists of a femoral, patellofemoral, and tibial component. This partial knee replacement system has been designed to offer several potential benefits to patients, including enhanced patient mobility and may result in quicker recoveries and shorter hospital stays4,5,6. All joints do wear over time and sometimes need to be replaced, but Mako has been designed for longevity7.

Each patient will experience a different post-operative activity level, depending on their own individual clinical factors.

Mako MCK Onlay

 

Clinical Success

Clinical Success

Low revision rate, high patient satisfaction6

The purpose of this multicentre study was to evaluate survivourship of an anatomically-designed UKA component implanted using a robotic-arm assisted surgical technique. Patients were recruited from a consecutive series for each surgeon starting with their initial MAKO MCK patient, thus including the surgeons learning curve.

  • 797 patients (909 knees) completed the survey 2 years post-operatively. 164 patients completed the survey 5 years post-operatively.
  • 11 knees were reported as revised at an average 29.6 month follow-up yielding a revision rate of 1.2%. Reasons for revision included mechanical loosening of the baseplate, unexplained pain, and infection. Of the 164 patients contacted at 5 years, 1 patient had been revised to a total knee, 1 had a reoperation for synovitis, and 1 had a knee arthroscopy, PF chondroplasty, and partial lateral meniscectomy.
  • 92% of patients reported very satisfied or satisfied at 2-year follow-up. This trend continued at 5 years.

Improved accuracy, higher outcome scores and less pain3,8

Prospective, single centre, level I, blinded, randomised controlled trial between Mako Partial Knee and Biomet Oxford

  • Mako Partial Knee showed more accurate delivery of the surgical plan in all alignment measures, with statistical significance in 5/6 parameters
  • Mako Partial Knee patients had significantly less pain out to eight weeks
  • Almost twice the number of patients with “excellent” American Knee Society scores at 3-months post-op

Procedure Video

Procedure Video

Extra Resources

Extra Resources

Request More Information

Thank you for your interest

Thank you for interest in this product. Your details have been recorded and a representative will be contact with you shortly.

Request More Information

If you would like more information on Stryker's Robotic-Arm Assisted Surgery with Mako, please complete the fields below.

register
  1. Achieving accurate ligament balancing using robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Plate JF1, Mofidi A, Mannava S, Smith BP, Lang JE, Poehling GG, Conditt MA, Jinnah RH. Adv Orthop. 2013;2013:837167. doi: 10.1155/2013/837167. Epub 2013 Mar 24.
  2. Accuracy of Dynamic Tactile-Guided Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty, Dunbar, Nicholas J. et al. The Journal of Arthroplasty , Volume 27 , Issue 5 , 803 - 808.e1
  3. Improved Accuracy of Component Positioning with Robotic-Assisted Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty, Stuart W. Bell, Iain Anthony, Bryn Jones, Angus MacLean, Philip Rowe, Mark Blyth. J Bone Joint Surg Am Apr 2016, 98 (8) 627-635; DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.15.00664
  4. Yildirim G, Fernandez-Madrid I, Schwarzkopf R, Walker PS, Karia R. Comparison of robot surgery modular and total knee arthroplasty kinematics. J Knee Surg. 2014 Apr;27(2):157-63.
  5. In vivo kinematics of a robot-assisted uni- and multi-compartmental knee arthroplasty. Watanabe T1, Abbasi AZ, Conditt MA, Christopher J, Kreuzer S, Otto JK, Banks SA. J Orthop Sci. 2014 Jul;19(4):552-7. doi: 10.1007/s00776-014-0578-3. Epub 2014 May 2.
  6. Koskinen E1, Eskelinen A, Paavolainen P, Pulkkinen P, Remes V. Comparison of survival and cost-effectiveness between unicondylar arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty in patients with primary osteoarthritis: a follow-up study of 50,493 knee replacements from the Finnish Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop. 2008 Aug;79(4):499-507.
  7. Short To Mid Term Survivorship Of Robotic-Arm Assisted Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty Thomas Coon, MD, Martin Roche, MD, Andrew Pearle, MD, Jon Dounchis, MD, Todd Borus, MD, Frederick Buechel, MD, Manoshi Bhowmik-Stoker, PhD, Michael Conditt, PhD 17th EFORT Congress 2016 Geneva, CH, 01-03 June
  8. Accuracy of UKA Implant Positioning and Early Clinical Outcomes in a RCT Comparing Robotic Assisted and Manual Surgery. Iain Anthony, Bryn Jones, Angus MacLean, Philip Rowe, Mark Blyth. University of Stracthclyde and Glasgow Royal Infirmary.
  9. Arno, S; Maffei; Walker, PS; Schwartzkopf, R; Desai, P; Steiner, GC. Retrospective Analysis of Total Knee Arthroplasty Cases for Visual, Histological and Clinical Eligibility of Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasties. J. Arthorplasty. 2011. 26(8): 1396-1403

 

Related Products