RSS
TwitterFacebook

Hip Replacement Lawsuits

hip-implant-components_357691571

Contact A Lawyer

Have A Potential Case Reviewed By An Attorney

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Several different hip replacement systems and artificial hip components sold in recent years have been linked to high failure rates and other complications. Product liability lawsuits are being reviewed for individuals who received defective or recalled hip replacements.

Find Out If You Have a Hip Replacement Case: Lawyers are reviewing hip replacement lawsuits for individuals who received an implant since 2006 and have:

  • Received notice the hip implant recalled;
  • Required metal blood testing for cobalt/chromium levels;
  • Experienced loosening, fracture or other problems that resulted in the need for hip revision surgery.

CONTACT A HIP REPLACEMENT LAWYER

Smith and Nephew Birmingham Hip Resurfacing System

The Smith & Nephew Birmingham Hip Resurfacing System was one of the first metal-on-metal hip replacement systems on the market. When combined with the R3 liner, it is considered a “metal-on-metal” hip implant, which, like other metal-on-metal systems sold by other manufacturers, has been found to release microscopic metal debris into the body, increasing the risk of loosening and failure of the artificial hip.

In 2012, Hong Kong issued a warning regarding Smith & Nephew Birmingham hip systems, indicating that they appeared to be linked to a higher-than-normal failure rate.

In June 2014, Smith & Nephew issued a statement announcing it was recalling smaller size components and changing instructions for use of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing system due to performance data.

The company warned that it had looked at data submitted to the National Joint Registry of England and Wales and found that “revision rates associated with men requiring femoral head sizes 46mm or smaller and with all women patients exceed the current benchmark established by the U.K. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE).”

Stryker LFIT V40 Femoral Head Lawsuits

The Stryker LFIT CoCr V40 femoral head is a component used as part of other hip replacement systems. In August 2016, the manufacturer issued a warning to the medical community that devices manufactured before 2011 appear to be prone to high failure rates which can cause loss of mobility, pain, inflammation, local tissue reactions, dislocation, joint instability, broken bones, and the need for revision surgery.

A higher than usual number of taper lock failures, which indicates a failure where the femoral head connects to the femoral neck, have been reported, resulting in warnings by Australian regulators and a Stryker LFIT v40 recall in Canada.

Stryker Rejuvenate Hip Recall

A Stryker Rejuvenate recall was issued in July 2012, after the manufacturer of the modular hip replacement system acknowledged that a higher than expected number of patients were experiencing problems with the device, often involving fretting or corrosion at the point where the two metal pieces fit inside each other, often resulting in the need for risky revision surgery to remove the implant.

Unlike traditional hip replacements, which feature a single femoral component, the Stryker Rejuvenate implants have a modular stem, where the surgeon is able to adjust the length to match the patient’s anatomy. However, as the metal components rub against each other during normal daily activities, it has been discovered that the design allows microscopic metallic debris to be released into the body, increasing the risk of loosening and failure.

In 2014, a global Stryker Rejuvenate settlement was reached by the manufacturer to resolve all cases where plaintiffs underwent revision surgery on or before November 2, 2014. However, additional cases are being reviewed as individuals experience problems with Stryker Rejuvenate hips.

DePuy ASR Recall

In August 2010, a DePuy ASR recall was issued due to high failure rates. The design features a metal femoral head that rotates within a metal acetabular cup, which can cause the release of metallic debris as the components grind together. This can result in metal blood poisoning known as hip metallosis, and can ultimately cause death of tissue around the implant and implant failure.

More than 12,000 DePuy ASR hip lawsuits have been filed.

In November 2013, DePuy Orthopaedics agreed to settle about 8,000 of the claims for $2.5 billion. The recall and subsequent cases were key in the medical community turning away from the metal-on-metal hip implant design.

DePuy Pinnacle Hip Lawsuits

The DePuy Pinnacle is another metal-on-metal hip replacement system, similar to the DePuy ASR. While it has not been recalled, thousands of lawsuits have been filed by individuals who indicate they suffered similar injuries to the DePuy ASR, including metallosis and total implant failures that required revision surgery.

A series of bellwether lawsuits have been scheduled and, as of December 2016, three cases have gone to trial. The first ended in a defense verdict, but the second resulted in a jury ordering the manufacturer to pay $140 million in compensatory damages and $360 million in punitive damages to five plaintiffs. The third resulted in a verdict in excess of $1 billion, including $32 million in compensatory damages, and $1.09 in punitive damages.

Other Metal-On-Metal Hip Implants

Thousands of metal-on-metal hip replacement lawsuits have been filed in recent years throughout the U.S., alleging that the manufacturers failed to adequately research the design or warn about the large number of implants that were failing within a few years and requiring revision surgery.

These have included the Biomet Magnum, the Wright Conserve hip system, Stryker ABG II and others. Free consultation and claim evaluations are available for individuals throughout the United States who have suffered hip implant complications, or have had to undergo revision surgery due to the failure of a hip replacement.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

  • Share Your Comments

  • Have Your Comments Reviewed by a Lawyer

    Provide additional contact information if you want an attorney to review your comments and contact you about a potential case. This information will not be published.
  • NOTE: Providing information for review by an attorney does not form an attorney-client relationship.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.