Robotic systems in orthopaedics

In brief

• “Robotic system” covers substantially different devices: robotic arms, a handheld burr, cutting-guide positioning and navigation-planning platforms.
• MAKO and CUVIS-joint use preoperative CT data; CORI and VELYS build their models intraoperatively; ROSA Knee offers more than one workflow.
• None of these five platforms selects treatment or performs surgery independently of the surgeon.
• A valid comparison must identify the procedure, configuration, market and outcome being assessed.

How to use this directory

All five platforms can help a surgeon plan component position, relate that plan to anatomy in the operating room and control bone preparation. The word “robot,” however, does not explain what information a system needs, what physical device moves, how an instrument is constrained or which tasks remain manual.

This directory therefore applies the same framework to every system: intended application, anatomical input, registration, planning, working instrument, software constraint and surgeon control. It is a technical map, not a league table or treatment recommendation.

The five systems

MAKO — CT-based planning and a haptic arm

Stryker’s platform creates a patient-specific 3D model from preoperative CT. The surgeon defines and may adjust the plan, registers the anatomy and controls an instrument mounted on a robotic arm. AccuStop haptic boundaries constrain movement to the planned working area. Official applications cover total and partial knee arthroplasty and total hip arthroplasty, although exact implant compatibility and indications vary by application and market. Read the MAKO technical profile.

CORI — intraoperative modelling and a handheld robotic burr

Smith+Nephew’s CORI knee workflow does not require a preoperative CT. Surfaces and landmarks are registered in theatre, enabling planning and gap assessment on an intraoperative model. The surgeon holds the burr while software controls burr exposure or speed at the planned boundary. CORI is a handheld system, not a positioning arm. RI.HIP NAVIGATION is listed separately as navigation software and should not be conflated with robotic knee bone preparation. Read the CORI technical profile.

CUVIS-joint — a CT-based plan and active robotic arm

CUREXO’s CUVIS-joint combines a preoperative 3D-planning workstation with a robotic tool. The FDA-cleared CJ150 configuration addresses preparation of the distal femur and proximal tibia in primary total knee arthroplasty. The manufacturer describes automated resection, but the plan is implemented under the surgeon’s direction and control. Hip applications reported by CUREXO represent separate regional authorisations. Read the CUVIS-joint technical profile.

ROSA — a family of distinct workflows

Zimmer Biomet’s ROSA is not one universal device. ROSA Knee supports image-based and imageless planning, evaluates landmarks and soft-tissue balance, and uses a robotic arm to position a cutting guide; the surgeon makes the saw cut. ROSA Partial Knee and ROSA Hip are separate applications with their own indications and technologies. Evidence or functions from one cannot automatically be transferred to another. Read the ROSA technical profile.

VELYS — CT-free planning and a constrained saw plane

The DePuy Synthes VELYS Robotic-Assisted Solution captures anatomical landmarks intraoperatively and creates a plan without preoperative CT. A table-mounted arm constrains the saw handpiece position and orientation within each resection plane and accounts for tracked leg movement. The surgeon holds, activates and advances the saw. Regulatory documents separately describe total and unicompartmental knee configurations. Read the VELYS technical profile.

Why a single “robotic arm” column is misleading

The MAKO arm carries the working instrument and establishes a haptic volume. CUVIS-joint’s arm executes planned bone cuts under team control. The ROSA Knee arm positions a cutting guide. VELYS constrains the plane for a surgeon-controlled saw. CORI has no separate positioning arm; its burr remains in the surgeon’s hands. These functions cannot be reduced to a meaningful yes-or-no field.

Limits of comparison

Regulatory clearance establishes the intended use of a particular configuration; it does not establish superiority over another system. Closer agreement between a cut and a plan also does not guarantee less pain, faster recovery, fewer complications or longer implant survival. Outcomes depend on diagnosis, anatomy, implant, team experience, comorbidity and rehabilitation, among other factors.

Features and compatible implants differ across countries and software versions. Clinical teams must consult current local instructions for use. Whether an operation is indicated is a clinical decision made after individual assessment.

Content reviewed against sources available on 8 August 2026. Scheduled review: August 2027, or sooner if regulatory documentation changes. Prepared by the RoboOrthoClub editorial team; any relevant manufacturer relationship must be disclosed before publication.