Is Mako the real deal?

Discussion in 'Stryker' started by Anonymous, Apr 20, 2015 at 1:09 PM.

Tags: Add Tags
  1. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Feeling threatened much?
     

  2. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Been in 2 mako revisions. Stryker rep said he was sending back to HQ. My guess is the numbers will show higher revision rate then making all cuts by hand. Gonna sell this and then have to explain that one, but that shouldn't matter as most of you will have moved on by then. Good luck in the long run.
     
  3. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    My question is lawsuits. Overheard a manager talking about if patients sue because of a revision from robotics we will have to be in court more and we will be paying lots little by little. Who is responsible for a bad mako job?
     
  4. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

  5. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Ya, lawsuits are gonna bite us good. If your selling get extra insurance.
     
  6. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Just because some bottom feeding personal injury attorney makes a website doesn't mean there are major problems. There is risk in all surgery with or without the robot. A uni knee failing? Wow never heard that, maybe that is why nobody does them. That patient population is very specific. Total hip and knee will have a bright future. This country is a joke with all the med mal that goes on.

    Mako is the most advanced robotic system on the market. Whether or not the market demands it is a different story.
     
  7. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    BUT, with the additional time it takes for the procedure, how can they do all of the extra cases? Not enough time in the day....
     
  8. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Ya, after reading info online, seems to big of a liability for hospitals to take on. Everyone lost their ass on CAS. Why repeat with even more risk? Looks like just for marketing is exactly what this is going to be.
     
  9. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    I'll play devil's advocate.....

    On the other hand, isn't there data showing a percentage of acetabular cups are placed outside the 'safe zone' when not using any CAS? What if one of these patient's dislocates or has a failure? Could a med mal attorney ask the orthopod why he didn't chose to use the latest available technology to accurately place the cup?
     
  10. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Cup placement is probably an issue for younger, less experienced surgeons. For surgeons that do hundreds of cases per year, it probably is not much of an issue. Especially when additional operating time increases risks to the patient because of time under anesthesia, risk to infection, etc. for experienced surgeons, cup placement is less of an issue, so why expose patients to the risks that could be avoided such as operating time?
     
  11. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    With the race to the bottom on any extra expense is a bad idea. I see shark fin soup here.
     
  12. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    It seems the robotic arm simply allows the surgeon to more accurately make cuts, ream, etc the way the he/she plans. What's wrong with that? I see this as a huge advantage in total knee and hip.

    At some point the procedure has to evolve away from manual cutting jigs, and "eyeballing". We've been working towards it for 10+ yrs through CAS, custom blocks, Orthalign, orthosensor, etc., Mako...
     
  13. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Nothing is wrong with the concept, but when it takes 1.5 times longer, and making the patient get a CT, which is more time/money. Is it worth it? Worth the 1 million dollar purchase, as well as reducing the ability to schedule more cases because they take longer?

    I'm all for better patient outcomes, but what about the risk due to operating time. Patient has exponentially more risk of infection the longer the procedure takes. Seems like the risk may outweigh the reward, especially when a surgeon has had very good clinical outcomes manually!
     
  14. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Agree.
    Bone cuts have been done roughly the same way for 30+ years.
    Without a doubt, the procedure will evolve and use more advanced technology.
    Is Mako it? Maybe.
    Regardless, it sounds like Stryker now owns the majority of IP in the ortho robotic surgery arena.
    IP lawyers will be busy as people try to duplicate technology.
    Time will tell.
     
  15. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Good points.
    However, what happens when the consumer (patient) is interested in this 'robot' and what it can do?
    If the guy across the street offers new technology and others don't, guess who will get more patients in the door?
     
  16. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    1.5 times? No. CAS doesn't even take that long.
    Cost of CT? Where is the majority of the cost? Radiologist to read it, which isn't needed. They just need the image, not someone to tell the surgeon what they already know.
     
  17. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Good point. This is why you see hospitals advertising Mako technology so aggressively. The problem?

    A.) The average person doesn't know what risks are involved with prolonged surgical time. They are just told, "As with any surgery, risks are involved." They don't understand how much more actual risk is involved.

    B.) As I mentioned before, what is the real gain of bringing more patients in, when you can't increase volume because the surgeries take longer than manual procedures.

    C.) It is a brilliant concept, focusing on innovation and future technology. The issue Stryker will have with the Total Hip/Knee goes back to the Risk vs Reward. The time for a Uni is 45-90 minutes. The same surgeons can finish a total knee/hip in 25-35 minutes. Stryker will need to figure out a way to streamline the process a bit. If time/money was the same, or even VERY close, it would be an incredible tool that no surgeons could turn down. The question is, can they make it happen?
     
  18. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    OP here, great last post, my question actually was ARE we making it happen? Does anyone have positive stories? Again, I think this can be great, but only if we can execute!
     
  19. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    I would reference the Direct Anterior Approach as a benchmark for increased OR time. No patient or institution has any objections to my knowledge.
     
  20. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Lots of non interest in purchasing it. Throw it in during a contract battle and you might see it in a facility. Nobody is going to buy it for any major price though, that's the problem.