Comparing robotic systems

In brief

• Systems should be compared by specific functions, not by the word “robot.”
• Imaging requirements, registration, planning and the role of the cutting tool differ materially.
• A robotic arm performs different tasks in MAKO, CUVIS, ROSA and VELYS; CORI instead uses a handheld robotic burr.
• Workflow differences do not establish a better clinical outcome by themselves.

Comparison method

This snapshot uses public regulatory records and official technical material available on 8 August 2026. It compares described configurations and procedures, not a brand in the abstract. Regional availability, software version and implant compatibility must be checked for the relevant market.

Criterion	MAKO	CORI	CUVIS-joint	ROSA Knee	VELYS Knee
Anatomical input	Preoperative CT	Intraoperative mapping	Preoperative CT	Imageless or image-based	Intraoperative landmarks
Planning	CT-based 3D plan, surgeon-adjustable	Created intraoperatively	CT-based plan, surgeon-adjustable	Created/refined intraoperatively	Intraoperative plan
Bone preparation	Arm-mounted tool with haptic boundaries	Handheld robotic burr	Automated arm resection under surgeon control	Arm positions cut guide; surgeon uses saw	Arm constrains surgeon-held saw plane
Registration	CT model plus optical tracking	Infrared tracking and surface map	CT model plus optical tracking	Optical navigation	Optical tracking
Verified scope	Separate knee and hip applications	Robotic knee applications; hip navigation separately	Primary TKA in the cited FDA configuration	Knee, Partial Knee and Hip are distinct applications	TKA and UKA in relevant configurations

Reading the fields

CT-based means the plan is linked to a three-dimensional model from preoperative computed tomography. Imageless means no preoperative CT model is required: landmarks are collected in theatre. It does not mean an absence of cameras, images or data.

Registration links physical anatomy to the system’s coordinates. Navigation tracks anatomy and instruments. Planning specifies target component and resection parameters; it may begin before surgery or be developed wholly intraoperatively.

“Robotic arm” is too broad on its own. MAKO carries a surgeon-directed tool and provides a haptic boundary. ROSA Knee positions a cutting guide. VELYS constrains the permitted saw plane. CUVIS performs automated resection under team control. CORI has no positioning arm; software modulates its handheld burr near the plan boundary.

Why there is no ranking

A clinical ranking would require comparable versions, operations, populations, endpoints and follow-up, preferably in direct trials. That evidence does not exist for every pair. Comparing percentages across unrelated centres can reflect study design, surgeon experience, implants or measurement methods rather than platform performance.

This table therefore answers “how does the workflow differ?”, not “which system should a patient choose?” Failure to show a difference is not proof of equivalence, and a statistically significant technical endpoint may not be clinically important.

Use the system profiles for configuration detail and MAKO versus CORI for a worked comparison. “Configuration dependent” and “not established” are deliberate evidence boundaries.

This material is for information and education only and is not a substitute for medical consultation. Diagnostic and treatment decisions must be made individually with a qualified healthcare professional.