Specialty
CT-based 3D planning and the AccuStop haptic boundary for partial knee replacement (UKA), total knee replacement, and selected complex cases — with an honest, published view of where Mako helps, where it doesn’t, and why patient selection matters more than the platform. With Dr. Sabrina Strickland at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York.
Mako is a CT-based robotic-arm platform made by Stryker. The surgeon builds a 3D plan of your knee from a pre-operative CT scan, the system tracks your anatomy in the OR, and the AccuStop haptic boundary physically resists motion of the saw or burr outside the planned envelope. Mako is a planning and execution-precision tool — it does not change the indication for surgery, the implant, the recovery, or the risks. The robot is not autonomous: every cut is the surgeon’s. Dr. Sabrina Strickland uses Mako at the Hospital for Special Surgery for the cases where it earns its place — most clearly in partial knee replacement (UKA), where small alignment errors drive early failure of the spared compartments. For straightforward total knee replacement in well-aligned patients, conventional outcomes are already excellent and the marginal benefit of robotic assistance is smaller. The right answer depends on the case, not on whether the technology is used.
If you have been told you need a knee replacement and you’ve seen the word Mako on your surgeon’s website, the question worth asking is not “is Mako better?” — it is “is my case one where the platform actually changes the outcome?” Some procedures benefit substantially from CT-based planning and haptic execution. Others do not. Dr. Strickland’s approach is to use Mako where it earns its place — most clearly in partial knee replacement (UKA), in selected total knee cases with complex alignment, and in patients who want documented pre-operative planning — and to set it aside in cases where the platform adds nothing or, as she has published for MPFL reconstruction, may not improve outcomes despite improving a single technical metric.
This page covers what the Mako system actually is and is not, what it does and does not change, when it earns its place (UKA), how it compares to the other robotic platforms (ROSA, VELYS), Dr. Strickland’s honest position on robot-assisted MPFL based on her own published commentary, the role of CT planning in osteotomy and revision cases, what to expect on surgery day, recovery timelines, risks (which are the procedure’s risks — not the platform’s), insurance and cost, and when a sub-specialty second opinion on robotic candidacy is worth seeking. For closely related procedures, see knee arthritis for the joint-replacement decision tree, joint preservation and osteotomy for the realignment side, MPFL reconstruction for the soft-tissue side of patellar instability, patellar instability, and patellar pain and patellofemoral arthritis.
Mako is a CT-based robotic-arm platform made by Stryker. Unlike imageless systems that rely on intraoperative landmarking, Mako builds its surgical plan from a CT scan of your knee taken before surgery. The CT becomes a 3D model of your bony anatomy — every contour, every angle, every osteophyte. The surgeon designs the entire procedure on that model: implant size, implant position, planned bone resection, and alignment targets. None of this happens during the operation. By the time you are in the OR, the plan exists.
A pre-operative CT scan becomes a personalized 3D model of your knee. Implant size, position, alignment targets, and planned bone resection are designed on your specific anatomy — not adjusted on the fly with intramedullary jigs.
Optical trackers attached to the femur and tibia register your actual knee to the CT plan in real time. The system compensates for movement throughout the procedure so the plan stays aligned to the bone as you operate.
The Mako AccuStop haptic boundary physically resists motion of the saw or burr outside the planned envelope. Every cut is the surgeon’s — the system prevents the instrument from straying. Soft-tissue balance and ligament tensioning are confirmed by the surgeon at the end.
The defining feature of Mako versus simple navigation systems is haptic feedback: as the surgeon moves the saw or burr through bone, the robotic arm physically resists motion outside the planned envelope. The surgeon feels the boundary. This is what makes Mako different from systems that show a screen overlay but don’t constrain the instrument. The cut happens within the plan, by force, not by intention alone.
What Mako is not: an autonomous robot. It does not perform surgery on its own. The surgeon designs the plan, controls the robotic arm during every cut, balances soft tissues by feel and by trial implant tensioning, and verifies alignment before final fixation. The platform constrains execution; it does not replace judgment.
This section is the most important one on the page. Mako is marketed heavily, and patients sometimes arrive believing the robot itself drives the outcome. It does not. Mako changes one specific thing: the consistency of the technical step it controls (bone resection or implant positioning to within sub-millimeter accuracy). It does not change:
Mako-trained surgeons who select patients well and execute the underlying procedure well will continue to get good outcomes with Mako. Mako-trained surgeons who select patients poorly will not be rescued by the platform. The robot is a tool, not a substitute for the disciplined work of arthroplasty.
Robotic assistance is not equally valuable across every knee procedure. The cases where Mako earns its place are those where small alignment differences translate into meaningfully different outcomes — and where pre-operative planning from imaging is more accurate than intraoperative landmarking.
Implant positioning is the single biggest driver of UKA failure. Small malalignment causes early loosening or progression of arthritis in the spared compartments. The Mako CT plan models the whole knee (worn compartment plus the spared ones), and the haptic boundary protects the precise resection — this is where the platform demonstrates its clearest technical contribution.
Patients with significant varus or valgus deformity, prior trauma, retained hardware, post-traumatic arthritis with disrupted landmarks, or unusual bony anatomy benefit from CT-based planning over standard intramedullary jigs. The plan documents the alignment target and the resection envelope before the OR.
Patients in their 50s and early 60s tend to outlive their first arthroplasty — precise alignment maximizes the time before revision becomes a question. Where joint preservation is no longer feasible, the Mako advantage in tight bone resection and component positioning is more valuable in patients who will live with the implant for 25–30+ years.
CT-based reconstruction of the planned alignment can be useful. Adding a second partial knee replacement needs to sit adjacent to but not interfere with the prior component — the platform helps with the planning step, not with the entire revision.
Conversely, robotics adds little to procedures driven primarily by soft-tissue judgment, ligament balancing by feel alone, or cases where the bony landmarks tell most of the story. In a straightforward total knee replacement on a well-aligned patient with normal anatomy and an experienced surgeon, the marginal benefit of robotic assistance over conventional technique is small — and conventional total knee outcomes are already excellent.
How the platform actually differs from traditional intramedullary-jig technique:
| Step | Mako | Conventional |
|---|---|---|
| Pre-op planning | CT-based 3D model of your specific anatomy; implant size and alignment designed before the OR | Standing x-rays plus intra-op landmarking; implant size confirmed in the OR |
| Bone cuts | AccuStop haptic boundary physically resists motion outside the planned envelope | Cutting blocks pinned to bone after intramedullary alignment; surgeon judgment on each cut |
| Soft-tissue balance | Surgeon-judged; informed by intraoperative balance feedback during trial implant testing | Surgeon-judged; informed by intraoperative balance feedback during trial implant testing |
| Imaging required | Pre-op CT scan (low-dose joint-replacement protocol) | Standing x-rays only |
| OR time | Slightly longer than conventional in most series; narrowing as teams scale volume | Established workflow; experienced teams are very efficient |
| Best evidence | Strongest for partial knee replacement (UKA); minimal for straightforward TKA | Long-track-record outcomes well-established for both UKA and TKA in experienced hands |
| Implant family | Stryker (Triathlon and others) | Surgeon-selected per case |
The honest framing: Mako has the strongest evidence advantage for partial knee replacement, where precision matters disproportionately and the technique is unforgiving of small errors. For straightforward total knee replacement in experienced hands, conventional outcomes are already excellent and the difference is smaller.
The clearest difference between Mako and traditional technique shows up in partial (unicompartmental) knee replacement (UKA). Partial replacement preserves the unaffected compartments and the cruciate ligaments — faster recovery, more native bone preserved, and a more natural-feeling knee for many patients. The trade-off has historically been technique sensitivity: small errors in implant position cause early loosening or progression of arthritis in the spared compartments. Robotic execution narrows that variance.
| Mako Partial Knee (UKA) | Mako Total Knee (TKA) | |
|---|---|---|
| Best candidate | Single-compartment arthritis, intact cruciate ligaments, well-correctable alignment | Multi-compartment arthritis or significant deformity |
| What Mako adds | Sub-millimeter implant positioning protects the spared compartments — the biggest historical driver of UKA failure | CT-based alignment planning vs intramedullary jigs — modest benefit in straightforward cases |
| Bone preserved | Substantially more native bone preserved vs total knee — one compartment, intact ligaments | Standard total knee resection of all three compartments |
| Recovery | Often discharged same day; walking with assistance immediately; off the walker in 1–2 weeks; most activities by 4–6 weeks | Standard total knee recovery (walker 2–4 weeks, daily activity by 2–3 months, full recovery 9–12 months) |
| Evidence strength | Strong — technical precision drives UKA outcome more than TKA | Modest in straightforward cases; clearer in complex alignment |
If you have been told you need a total knee replacement, asking whether you might be a candidate for partial knee replacement instead — and whether Mako is available to your surgeon for that procedure — is a reasonable second-opinion question. Not every patient qualifies for UKA, but many do. For the broader treatment ladder, see knee arthritis; for joint-preserving alternatives that come before any replacement, see joint preservation and osteotomy.
For patients with isolated patellofemoral arthritis — arthritis behind the kneecap with healthy medial and lateral compartments — patellofemoral arthroplasty (PFA) resurfaces only the trochlea and patella, preserving the rest of the knee. Component positioning matters disproportionately in PFA because the patella has to track through the trochlear groove smoothly through full range of motion: a few degrees of trochlear-component rotation, or a few millimeters of offset, change patellar tracking and contact stress.
Mako-assisted PFA is not recommended by Dr. Strickland in most cases as she prefers the Zimmer Patellofemoral Arthroplasty implants. Her primary patellofemoral practice is the soft-tissue and realignment work (MPFL reconstruction, AMZ-TTO, distalization TTO) before patellofemoral arthroplasty becomes the right answer; for patients who do reach PFA, Dr. Strickland prefers the Zimmer implant. See patellar pain and patellofemoral arthritis for the broader PFA framework.
A frequent question: does Mako execute high tibial osteotomy (HTO), distal femoral osteotomy (DFO), or tibial tubercle osteotomy (TTO)? The honest answer is more nuanced than the marketing suggests. Realignment osteotomies are primarily a planning problem — the precise correction angle, the wedge size, and the pivot point determine the outcome. CT-based 3D planning is genuinely helpful for visualizing complex deformity in three planes, simulating the correction, and templating fixation hardware.
Where Mako specifically integrates into osteotomy execution is more procedure-specific and continues to evolve. Dr. Strickland’s osteotomy practice (HTO, DFO, AMZ-TTO, distalization TTO) draws on CT-based pre-operative planning when the case warrants it; for many osteotomies in patients with straightforward anatomy, the planning step does not require CT, and traditional radiographic templating with fluoroscopic confirmation is sufficient. As with arthroplasty, the case selection comes first — the platform is matched to the case, not the case to the platform. For the full joint-preservation framework, see joint preservation and osteotomy.
MPFL reconstruction is the most position-sensitive ligament reconstruction in the knee. Femoral tunnel position drives graft tension through full range of motion: a tunnel placed even a few millimeters off the anatomic footprint changes graft tension — too tight in flexion, too loose in extension, or both. It is reasonable to ask whether robotic assistance, by hitting the tunnel target more precisely, should improve outcomes. Dr. Strickland has published her view on this question.
“Using a robot to improve surgery sounds like a no-brainer. More accurate is better, right? Well, not necessarily.”
“The robotic-assisted group had the femoral tunnel in closer to a specific anatomic landmark, but both groups had similar rates for achievement of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for patient-reported outcomes (PROs). The robotic-assisted surgery took longer and required expensive technology. Furthermore, anatomic variations from patient to patient mean that not all ligaments should be placed in exactly the same spot.”
— Dr. Sabrina Strickland, “Is Robot-assisted MPFL Reconstruction Better than Freehand?” (April 2025)
The clinical implication: for MPFL reconstruction specifically, robotic assistance has not been shown to improve patient-reported outcomes despite hitting the geometric target more precisely. The deeper reason is that anatomic variation matters: a single “optimal” tunnel position derived from cadaveric averages does not capture the patient-specific variation that surgeons account for at the time of surgery using fluoroscopy, range-of-motion isometry testing, and graft tension feedback. For more on tunnel position and the broader MPFL technique, see MPFL reconstruction surgery and two-fixation-point MPFL technique; for the broader patellar instability framework (where tunnel position is one of several variables that drive outcome), see patellar instability.
This section is intentionally counter-marketing. Dr. Strickland’s view is that robotic platforms earn their place case by case — not procedure by procedure based on glossy literature. For UKA the evidence is favorable; for MPFL, on her published reading, it is not.
Three robotic-arm platforms dominate the knee replacement market. Each pairs with a different implant family, and they differ technically in how the surgical plan is built:
| Platform | Manufacturer | Planning approach | Implant family |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mako | Stryker | Pre-operative CT-based 3D plan; AccuStop haptic boundary | Stryker (Triathlon, others) |
| ROSA Knee | Zimmer Biomet | Imageless — intraoperative landmarking; navigation-based execution | Zimmer Biomet (Persona, others) |
| VELYS | DePuy Synthes (J&J) | Imageless — intraoperative landmarking; navigation-based execution | DePuy (Attune, others) |
Dr. Strickland’s primary platform at HSS is Mako. She does not multi-platform across competing systems — high-volume joint replacement is a workflow problem as much as a technical one, and consistency across the surgical team matters. Patients who specifically want a different platform are best served by a surgeon whose volume is on that platform; patients who want to know which platform is “best” in the abstract are usually asking the wrong question. The platform should match the surgeon’s training, the implant the surgeon and hospital are using, and the workflow the OR team has scaled.
The CT-based vs imageless distinction matters most for patients with complex bony anatomy — significant deformity, prior trauma, or retained hardware — where pre-operative CT-based planning has a clearer advantage over intraoperative landmarking. In straightforward anatomy, the difference between platforms in skilled hands is smaller than the marketing suggests.
The surgery-day experience is fundamentally the same as a conventional knee replacement — with one upstream addition (the pre-operative CT) and one workflow difference (tracker pin placement at the start of the procedure). Specifics vary by case and your protocol is individualized at consultation.
The block typically wears off over the first 12 to 24 hours, during which the leg is numb and weight-bearing requires a walker because the leg is not protecting itself normally. This is expected and is part of the trade-off for the lower pain levels in that first day. For the broader patient walk-through, see before knee replacement surgery.
The most important point on this page about recovery: Mako does not shorten recovery compared to conventional knee replacement. Recovery follows the procedure performed, not the platform. A Mako partial knee replacement and a conventional partial knee replacement performed by an experienced surgeon recover on the same timeline. The same is true for total knee replacement.
| Procedure | Walker / cane | Driving | Most daily activity | Full recovery |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mako partial knee (UKA) | 1–2 weeks | 2–4 weeks | 4–6 weeks | 3–6 months |
| Mako total knee (TKA) | 2–4 weeks | 4–6 weeks | 2–3 months | 9–12 months |
| Patellofemoral arthroplasty | 1–2 weeks | 2–4 weeks | 4–8 weeks | 3–6 months |
| Conventional partial knee (UKA) | 1–2 weeks | 2–4 weeks | 4–6 weeks | 3–6 months |
| Conventional total knee (TKA) | 2–4 weeks | 4–6 weeks | 2–3 months | 9–12 months |
Patients consistently underestimate the role of structured PT in arthroplasty recovery. Skipping or shortening PT does not save time — it almost always extends recovery and increases the risk of stiffness, particularly after total knee replacement, regardless of whether the procedure was Mako-assisted or conventional. For the patient-facing walk-through of what to expect, see what to worry about when undergoing a knee replacement.
The risks of Mako-assisted knee surgery are the same as conventional knee replacement, with one platform-specific addition (tracker-pin sites) and one upstream consideration (CT radiation exposure). No platform is risk-free.
The specific risk profile for your case depends on your age, weight, medical history, the type of arthritis, the procedure planned, and prior surgery on the knee — not on whether the procedure is robotic-assisted or conventional.
The three concerns we hear most often before robotic-assisted knee surgery, with honest answers:
No. Mako is not autonomous. The surgeon designs the plan from imaging, controls the robotic arm during every cut, balances soft tissues by feel and trial-implant testing, and verifies alignment before final fixation. The AccuStop haptic boundary physically resists the saw or burr from straying outside the planned envelope — but the cut is the surgeon’s. Think of it as a high-precision constraint on the cutting motion, not an autonomous operating system. The surgeon is the decision-maker at every step.
Not universally. Mako has the strongest evidence advantage in partial knee replacement, where small alignment errors drive early failure of the spared compartments. For straightforward total knee replacement in well-aligned patients, conventional outcomes performed by an experienced surgeon are already excellent — the marginal benefit of robotic assistance is smaller. Patient selection and surgeon experience matter more than the platform. The most important question is not “robot or no robot?” — it is “is this the right operation for me, and is the surgeon experienced in performing it?”
No — recovery follows the procedure, not the platform. Mako partial knee replacement recovers on the same timeline as conventional partial knee replacement (off the walker in 1–2 weeks, most activities by 4–6 weeks). Mako total knee replacement recovers on the same timeline as conventional total knee replacement (most activities by 2–3 months, full recovery 9–12 months). The platform does not change the biology of healing, the rehabilitation protocol, or your motivation to do the work in PT.
Robotic-assisted knee surgery is covered by all major commercial insurance plans, Medicare, and most union and self-funded plans when the underlying procedure is medically necessary. Mako is not billed as a separate “robotic upcharge” — the procedure (partial knee replacement, total knee replacement, patellofemoral arthroplasty) bills the same way it would for conventional technique. The robotic platform is part of the operating-room setup. The variables that drive your specific out-of-pocket cost are:
Before any procedure, our office verifies your benefits, obtains pre-authorization where required, and reviews the estimated out-of-pocket cost with you. For benefits verification, call us at (646) 960-7227 or contact the office.
A sub-specialty second opinion specifically on robotic-assisted knee surgery candidacy is particularly worth seeking when:
Dr. Strickland performs Mako robotic-assisted knee surgery at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York City — the highest-volume orthopedic hospital in the United States, where Mako is widely available across the joint replacement service and where workflow is optimized for high-volume robotic arthroplasty. She sees patients for in-person consultation at two locations:
For patients traveling to New York from out of state for Mako robotic knee replacement, partial knee evaluation, or revision arthroplasty, we coordinate consultation, pre-operative CT, and surgery scheduling to minimize travel and align with imaging review and pre-operative work-up.
This page is grounded in Dr. Strickland’s published commentary, her peer-reviewed research, her MAKO Robotic Surgery certification training, and the connected joint-replacement and patellofemoral content elsewhere on her site. Selected references:
| Topic | Source |
|---|---|
| Robot-assisted vs freehand MPFL — her published view | Is robot-assisted MPFL reconstruction better than freehand? |
| MPFL tunnel position (two-fixation-point technique) | Two fixation points for MPFL reconstruction |
| Knee arthritis — replacement decision tree, Mako framing | Knee arthritis treatment |
| Joint preservation before replacement (HTO, DFO, AMZ-TTO) | Joint preservation and osteotomy |
| Patellofemoral arthritis — PFA, joint-preservation alternatives | Patellar pain and patellofemoral arthritis |
| Patellar instability hub | Patellar instability |
| MPFL reconstruction surgical technique | MPFL reconstruction surgery |
| Pre-operative knee replacement preparation | Before knee replacement surgery |
| Honest concerns about knee replacement | What to worry about when undergoing a knee replacement |
| Double partial knee replacements (case) | Double partial knee replacements |
| Surgeon credentials & MAKO certification | Dr. Strickland bio · research & publications |
For Dr. Strickland’s broader publication record on patellofemoral surgery, joint preservation, cartilage restoration, and sports medicine, see research & publications.
No. Mako is not autonomous and does not perform surgery on its own. The surgeon designs the 3D plan from a pre-operative CT scan, controls the robotic arm during every cut, balances soft tissues by feel and by trial implant tensioning, and verifies alignment before final fixation. The Mako AccuStop haptic boundary physically resists motion of the saw or burr outside the planned envelope — but the cut is the surgeon’s. The platform is a precision execution tool, not a substitute for the surgeon’s judgment.
Not universally. Mako improves the consistency of one technical step — bone resection or implant positioning to within sub-millimeter accuracy. The benefit is clearest in partial knee replacement (UKA), where small alignment errors drive early failure of the spared compartments. For straightforward total knee replacement in well-aligned patients, the difference between Mako-assisted and conventional technique is smaller, and conventional total knee outcomes are already excellent in experienced hands. The right answer depends on the case, not on whether the technology is used.
Mako does not change the indication for surgery, the implant manufacturer, the recovery timeline, the surgical risks, or patient selection. Mako does not make a wrong-indication surgery right. It does not shorten recovery compared to conventional knee replacement. It does not eliminate the risks of infection, blood clot, stiffness, or implant loosening. And it does not replace the disciplined work of patient selection, soft-tissue balancing, and rehabilitation that drive a good outcome.
Dr. Strickland has published her honest view on this question. A study comparing robotic-assisted to freehand MPFL reconstruction found that the robotic group placed the femoral tunnel closer to the anatomic landmark, but both groups achieved similar rates of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for patient-reported outcomes. The robotic-assisted surgery took longer and required expensive technology. Her view: anatomic variation between patients argues against the assumption that there is a single optimal tunnel position to be hit precisely the same way every time. For MPFL specifically, robotic assistance is not the answer for everything — careful surgical judgment and anatomic technique are. See her published commentary for the full discussion.
Mako partial (unicompartmental) knee replacement is most useful when arthritis is confined to a single compartment of the knee — most often the medial compartment — with intact cruciate ligaments (especially the ACL), minimal disease in the other compartments, and well-correctable alignment. Patients who fit this profile are often candidates for a less invasive procedure than total knee replacement, with faster recovery and more native bone preserved. The decision is based on weight-bearing imaging, alignment films, exam, and how the rest of the knee looks during the planning step.
Recovery follows the procedure performed, not the platform. Mako partial knee replacement typically returns patients to walking with assistance the same day, off the walker in 1 to 2 weeks, and to most daily activities by 4 to 6 weeks. Mako total knee replacement follows the standard total knee timeline — walker for 2 to 4 weeks, driving at 4 to 6 weeks, most daily activities at 2 to 3 months, full recovery 9 to 12 months. Mako does not shorten recovery compared to conventional knee replacement.
Yes. The Mako system is used as part of standard knee replacement procedures that are covered by all major commercial insurance plans, Medicare, and most union and self-funded plans when medical necessity is met. The procedure bills the same way as conventional knee replacement; the robotic platform is part of the operating room setup. Verify your specific plan with our office before scheduling — we obtain pre-authorization where required and review estimated out-of-pocket costs in advance.
Mako (Stryker), ROSA (Zimmer Biomet), and VELYS (DePuy Synthes) are three different robotic-arm platforms for knee replacement. Mako is CT-based — the 3D plan is built from a pre-operative CT scan with the patient’s actual bony anatomy and uses a haptic AccuStop boundary. ROSA and VELYS use intraoperative landmarking rather than a pre-operative CT. The platform also pairs with the implant manufacturer’s product family. Dr. Strickland’s primary platform at HSS is Mako with Stryker implants; she does not multi-platform across systems.
Yes — Mako requires a pre-operative CT scan, which uses ionizing radiation. The CT becomes the 3D model the surgeon plans on. Modern low-dose protocols specifically designed for joint-replacement planning minimize the radiation dose. The trade-off is the upfront-planning advantage CT-based platforms have over imageless systems: the surgeon plans on your actual bony anatomy before you enter the OR, rather than landmarking the anatomy intraoperatively.
Dr. Sabrina Strickland performs Mako robotic-assisted knee surgery at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York City — the highest-volume orthopedic hospital in the United States, where Mako is widely available across the joint replacement service. She also sees patients for in-person consultation at her satellite office at Stamford Chelsea Piers in Stamford, Connecticut; surgery is performed at HSS. Patients travel from New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and out of state for sub-specialty knee evaluations.
For the full knee-arthritis decision tree (non-surgical, joint-preserving, partial, total), see knee arthritis. For joint-preserving osteotomies (HTO, DFO, AMZ-TTO) before any replacement, see joint preservation and osteotomy. For patellofemoral arthritis behind the kneecap and the role of patellofemoral arthroplasty, see patellar pain and patellofemoral arthritis. For the soft-tissue side of patellar instability and Dr. Strickland’s honest view on robot-assisted MPFL, see MPFL reconstruction surgery and patellar instability. For cartilage-restoration options that may delay or replace the need for arthroplasty, see MACI cartilage repair and cartilage transplantation (OATS & osteochondral allograft). For PRP and biologic-injection details, see PRP and regenerative medicine.
Medical Disclaimer. This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Surgical and non-surgical orthopedic care should always be discussed with a board-certified orthopedic surgeon who has reviewed your imaging, history, and physical examination. Individual outcomes vary based on diagnosis, anatomy, comorbidities, surgical or non-surgical approach selected, the type of arthritis, and adherence to rehabilitation. Robotic-assisted knee replacement is a tool that improves the consistency of bone resection and implant positioning — it does not change the indication for surgery, the recovery timeline, or the surgical risks, and it is not a guaranteed permanent fix. Patient selection and surgeon experience drive outcomes; the platform supports both. References to head-to-head comparison studies on this page (including the robotic-assisted vs freehand MPFL discussion) are drawn from peer-reviewed literature cited in the source-grounding table above. Dr. Strickland’s primary robotic platform is Mako (Stryker); references to ROSA and VELYS are descriptive of the marketplace and do not imply Dr. Strickland performs cases on those platforms. The Mako system is FDA-cleared for the procedures referenced on this page.
If you are evaluating partial knee replacement, total knee replacement, patellofemoral arthroplasty, or revision arthroplasty — and you want an honest discussion of where Mako helps and where it doesn’t for your specific case — bring your imaging to a sub-specialty consultation in NYC or Stamford, CT.
Enter your question below and a representative will get right back to you.