Cartiva Implant Recall Lawsuits Move Forward, as Plaintiffs Seek Compensation for Big Toe Surgery Failures

The hydrogel implant was designed to mimic natural cartilage and preserve motion in the big toe joint, but post market reports linked the device to pain, loosening and implant subsidence, prompting a series of Cartiva lawsuits.

Mounting reports of surgical failures following Cartiva toe implant procedures are now fueling a rise in lawsuits nationwide, as research and patient outcomes have raised questions about the safety and effectiveness of the device.

The Cartiva Synthetic Cartilage Implant was introduced in 2016 as a motion-preserving alternative to joint fusion surgery for individuals suffering from hallux rigidus, a degenerative arthritis affecting the big toe joint. The hydrogel implant was marketed as a way to relieve pain while allowing patients to maintain movement in the joint, avoiding the permanent stiffness associated with traditional fusion procedures.

However, follow-up research and post-market patient outcomes have raised concerns about whether Cartiva failure rates were accurately measured during clinical trials. Some research indicates nearly 30% of Cartiva patients required revision or removal surgery, while other studies have reported complication rates approaching 45%, with many patients continuing to experience pain or limited movement after the procedure.

As reports of implant failures continued to emerge, patients across the United States began pursuing legal claims alleging the device was defectively designed and marketed without adequate warnings about the risks. A growing number of Cartiva implant lawsuits now seek compensation for revision surgeries, chronic pain and long-term mobility limitations following big toe implant procedures.

Cartiva Implant Recall Details

The Cartiva Synthetic Cartilage Implant is a molded cylindrical device made from a polyvinyl alcohol hydrogel designed to mimic the mechanical properties of natural cartilage. Surgeons implant the device into the first metatarsophalangeal joint of the big toe to replace damaged cartilage and relieve pain caused by hallux rigidus, a form of degenerative arthritis that limits movement in the joint. The implant was marketed as a motion-preserving alternative to traditional fusion surgery, which permanently locks the joint in place.

However, post-market experience began raising concerns that the device was not performing as expected in many patients. Surgeons and recipients increasingly reported painful complications and poor surgical outcomes following the procedure, including cases where the implant allegedly failed to relieve symptoms or required removal.

In October 2024, Stryker issued a safety notice and recall affecting all Cartiva Synthetic Cartilage Implant devices distributed since the product was first introduced in July 2016, citing newly published research and post-market reports showing higher-than-expected complication rates compared to the data originally submitted to the FDA during the approval process.

Reported Cartiva Implant Complications

According to the recall notice (PDF), the manufacturer acknowledged that patients implanted with the device may face increased risks of several complications, including:

• Revision or removal surgery
• Implant subsidence (sinking into surrounding bone)
• Implant displacement or loosening
• Persistent toe pain and stiffness
• Nerve damage
• Implant fragmentation

The recall applies to all sizes of the Cartiva Synthetic Cartilage Implant, including:

• CAR-06-US (6mm) – Primary Device Identifier 00852897002328
• CAR-08-US (8mm) – Primary Device Identifier 00852897002021
• CAR-10-US (10mm) – Primary Device Identifier 00852897002038
• CAR-12-US (12mm) – Primary Device Identifier 00852897002335

These devices were distributed between July 2016 and October 2024, and hospitals and surgical centers were instructed to immediately remove any remaining implants from inventory and return them to the manufacturer.

Healthcare providers were also advised to continue monitoring patients who previously received the device for symptoms that could signal implant failure, including:

• Persistent pain in the big toe joint
• Swelling or stiffness
• Difficulty walking
• Weakness or loss of mobility in the toe

For many who experience implant failure, treatment requires additional surgery to remove the device, often followed by a fusion procedure to stabilize the joint, permanently eliminating movement in the big toe.

As reports of these complications increased and the recall brought broader attention to the device’s risks, individuals across the United States began pursuing legal claims alleging the manufacturer failed to adequately warn about the likelihood of implant failure and revision surgery.

Cartiva Implant Lawsuits Centralized in Federal MDL

Following the Cartiva recall and mounting reports of surgical failures, individuals across the United States began filing lawsuits alleging the Cartiva Synthetic Cartilage Implant was defectively designed and prone to premature failure.

Many of the claims were filed in federal courts throughout the country, each involving similar allegations that the manufacturer failed to adequately warn surgeons and patients about the risks associated with the big toe implant. As more cases were filed, attorneys representing injured recipients sought to consolidate the litigation so that common evidence and legal issues could be handled in one coordinated proceeding.

Request to Consolidate Cartiva Lawsuits

In October 2025, a group of plaintiffs filed a petition with the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML), asking that all federal Cartiva implant lawsuits be transferred to a single judge as part of a multidistrict litigation, or MDL.

The motion argued that the lawsuits share common questions of fact, including:

• How the Cartiva implant was designed and tested
• Representations made to the FDA during the approval process
• Marketing claims that the device would preserve motion in the toe joint
• The events that ultimately led to the 2024 recall

Centralizing the cases would allow one court to oversee coordinated discovery, document production and expert testimony, while preventing conflicting rulings from different federal courts.

Manufacturer Opposes MDL Consolidation

Cartiva’s manufacturer opposed the request for consolidation, arguing the lawsuits should remain separate.

In filings submitted to the JPML in November 2025, the company indicated it had already been working with plaintiffs’ lawyers through tolling agreements that allowed both sides to exchange medical records and review claims without immediately filing lawsuits. According to the manufacturer, many claims had already been resolved through settlement discussions during this process.

The company warned that creating an MDL could disrupt those negotiations and potentially trigger a surge of new lawsuits rather than helping resolve existing claims.

Cartiva Implant Lawsuits Consolidated in Arkansas

On January 29, 2026, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation heard oral arguments in San Diego to determine whether the lawsuits should be centralized.

Plaintiffs argued that consolidating the cases would streamline discovery and allow the court to efficiently address common issues involving the safety of the implant and the manufacturer’s warnings.

Following the hearing, the JPML issued a transfer order on February 5, 2026, rejecting the manufacturer’s objections and consolidating the litigation, and issued a transfer order centralizing all federal Cartiva implant lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, where they are being overseen by U.S. District Judge Kristine G. Baker as part of MDL No. 3172, In re: Cartiva Synthetic Cartilage Implant Products Liability Litigation.

According to a JPML docket report issued March 2, 2026, 14 Cartiva implant lawsuits are currently pending in the MDL, though attorneys expect the number of claims to increase as more people learn about the recall and ongoing litigation.

Centralization allows the court to manage discovery and other pretrial proceedings for all cases at once. If the parties are unable to reach a global settlement after pretrial proceedings are completed, individual cases may later be returned to the courts where they were originally filed for separate trial dates.

Plaintiffs Seek Cartiva Implant Lawsuit Settlements

Individuals pursuing Cartiva implant lawsuits are seeking financial compensation for the physical injuries, additional medical procedures and long-term lifestyle limitations caused by the failure of the synthetic cartilage device.

Many of those who chose the Cartiva implant did so specifically to remain active and avoid permanent fusion of the big toe joint. Instead, many allege they were left facing the very outcome the device was intended to prevent, often after enduring months or years of persistent pain and multiple surgical procedures.

For many individuals, the failure of the implant has meant more than just another medical procedure. The big toe joint plays a critical role in balance, walking and athletic movement. When the implant fails or the joint must be fused, individuals may experience permanent changes in how they walk, exercise and perform daily activities.

As a result, Cartiva implant lawsuits seek compensation for a wide range of damages associated with the failed surgery and its lasting effects.

Medical Expenses and Revision Surgeries

Many plaintiffs report that the original implant surgery did not resolve their symptoms and instead required additional procedures to correct complications caused by the device. Compensation claims often include recovery for medical expenses related to:

• The original Cartiva implant procedure
• Follow-up medical care and diagnostic imaging
• Revision surgery to remove the failed implant
• Toe fusion procedures required after implant removal
• Hospitalization, anesthesia and surgical costs
• Physical therapy and rehabilitation following revision surgery
• Ongoing orthopedic treatment for chronic pain or mobility limitations

For some patients, revision surgery is more complex than the original procedure, particularly if bone loss occurred around the implant site.

Pain, Suffering and Reduced Quality of Life

Cartiva implant lawsuits also seek damages for the physical pain and emotional toll associated with the failed surgery and its aftermath.

Many plaintiffs report ongoing symptoms such as chronic pain, stiffness and difficulty walking that persist even after corrective surgery. In cases where the big toe joint must be fused, individuals may permanently lose the ability to bend the toe, altering their gait and limiting mobility.

These limitations can have significant impacts on everyday life, particularly for individuals who were previously active and relied on normal joint movement for exercise or recreation. Damages may be sought for:

• Chronic pain following the failed implant surgery
• Permanent loss of mobility in the big toe joint
• Limitations on walking, running and athletic activities
• Loss of independence in daily activities
• Emotional distress caused by long-term complications

For many individuals, the injuries affect activities that once defined their lifestyle, including sports, hiking, running and other forms of physical activity that rely heavily on proper foot mechanics.

Lost Wages and Financial Losses

Individuals who undergo revision surgery or experience prolonged complications may also face significant financial hardship.

Recovery from additional surgery can require extended time away from work, particularly for individuals whose jobs require standing, walking or physical activity.

Cartiva implant lawsuits may therefore seek compensation for:

• Lost wages during recovery from revision procedures
• Reduced earning capacity caused by mobility limitations
• Missed work opportunities related to ongoing medical care

Future Medical Care and Long-Term Impairment

In some cases, patients may require ongoing treatment for complications related to the failed implant, including chronic pain management or additional orthopedic care.

Because fusion of the big toe joint permanently alters foot mechanics, some individuals may also face long-term complications affecting other parts of the foot or lower body.

For this reason, Cartiva implant lawsuits may also pursue damages for:

• Future medical treatment related to the injury
• Long-term rehabilitation or pain management
• Permanent disability or impairment

Cartiva Implant Failure Lawyers

Financial compensation may be available through a Cartiva implant failure lawsuit settlement for individuals who received a failed Cartiva implant and experienced any of the following complications:

• Implant Failure/Fracture
• Subsidence (implant sinks into the bone)
• Toe Fusion Surgery
• Replacement Surgery
• Revision Surgery

Cartiva implant lawyers are reviewing lawsuits on a contingency fee basis, which means that there are no fees or expenses paid unless a Cartiva settlement or lawsuit payout is received.

---