Archive for the ‘Hip Resurfacing’ Category

Hip Implant Complaints Surge, Even as the Dangers Are Studied

Tuesday, August 23rd, 2011

Tim Shaffer for The New York Times

Ann Morrison experienced pain, rashes and inflammation soon after receiving all-metal replacements for each of her hips.

By and
Published: August 22, 2011

The federal government has received a surge in complaints in recent months about failed hip replacements, suggesting that serious problems persist with some types of artificial hips even as researchers scramble to evaluate the health dangers.

An analysis of federal data by The New York Times indicates that the Food and Drug Administration has received more than 5,000 reports since January about several widely used devices known as metal-on-metal hips, more than the agency had received about those devices in the previous four years combined.

The vast majority of filings appear to reflect patients who have had an all-metal hip removed, or will soon undergo such a procedure because a device failed after only a few years; typically, replacement hips last 15 years or more.

The mounting complaints confirm what many experts have feared — that all-metal replacement hips are on a trajectory to become the biggest and most costly medical implant problem since Medtronic recalled a widely used heart device component in 2007. About 7,700 complaints have been filed in connection with that recall.

Though immediate problems with the hip implants are not life-threatening, some patients have suffered crippling injuries caused by tiny particles of cobalt and chromium that the metal devices shed as they wear.

Hip replacement is one of the most common procedures in the United States and, until a recent sharp decline, all-metal implants — one in which both the artificial ball and cup are made of metal — accounted for nearly one-third of the estimated 250,000 replacements performed each year. According to one estimate, some 500,000 patients have received an all-metal replacement hip.

One of the most problematic devices, the A.S.R., or Articular Surface Replacement, was recalled last year by Johnson & Johnson and accounted for 75 percent of the complaints reviewed by The Times. A precise count of failed implants reported to the F.D.A. is hard to come by because of the agency’s overlapping reporting system, though The Times sought to eliminate duplicate reports about the same incident. Some complaints came from outside the United States.

Under F.D.A. rules, many all-metal devices were sold without testing in patients or without a requirement that producers track their performance. But in an unusual intervention, the F.D.A. in May ordered producers to study how frequently the devices were failing and to examine the threat to patients. Now, researchers say, producers face substantial hurdles in recruiting the hundreds of patients needed to conduct sound studies because of the lack of patient registries.

“They are grasping at how they are going to get this information,” said Dr. Robert S. Namba, an orthopedic surgeon with Kaiser Permanente.

In addition, researchers are struggling to understand the tissue damage caused by the metallic debris. While some patients experience pain, other patients with the same damage have no pain, complicating decisions about whether to remove devices.

As problems and questions grow, most surgeons are abandoning the all-metal hips, saying they are unwilling to expose new patients to potential dangers when safer alternatives — mainly replacements that combine metal and plastic components — are available. Some researchers also fear that many all-metal hips suffer from a generic flaw. Current use of all metal devices has plummeted to about 5 percent of the market, though a few of the models are performing relatively well in select patients.

“It is like playing Russian roulette,” said Dr. Geoffrey H. Westrich, an orthopedic surgeon at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, who has stopped using all-metal implants.

Dr. William Maisel, the chief scientist of the F.D.A. division that oversees medical devices, said he believed that producers would mount rigorous studies and find answers. But he acknowledged that it could take several years.

“There is not an existing infrastructure for studying this kind of information,” Dr. Maisel said.

For many patients, it is too late. In 2008, Ann Morrison, a physical therapist from Newark, Del., received all-metal replacements for both of her hips. But Ms. Morrison, 50, soon experienced pain, rashes and inflammation.

Last year, the devices were replaced, but by then, she said, debris-caused tissue damage was so extensive that she now needs a brace to walk and still cannot work. She called the F.D.A.’s order for medical studies a “joke.”

“We will be the little crash test dummies here until they figure out the health ramifications for us down the road,” said Ms. Morrison, who has sued the DePuy division of Johnson & Johnson, which made her implants.

To conduct its analysis, The Times reviewed complaints filed with the F.D.A. from 2007 through this June for several implants, including the A.S.R. and the Durom cup, a component sold by Zimmer Holdings.

Typically, the number of complaints filed with the F.D.A. about a product understates a problem because while companies must file reports, doctors and patients do not have to. The filing volume for the A.S.R. and the Durom cup probably reflects a surge of lawsuits filed against their makers.

The Times review found some 7,500 complaints about the A.S.R., nearly 5,000 of them coming since January. In the case of the Durom cup, about 1,600 complaints were filed with the regulator from 2007 to this June.

Because complaints to the F.D.A. are not uniform, it is impossible to say how many adverse reports about all-metal hips have been submitted. For example, the Times analysis found some 200 complaints about an all-metal version of another DePuy device called the Pinnacle as well as 400 additional complaints that noted metal-related problems in Pinnacle patients. But the Pinnacle is sold in several versions, so it was not clear how many of the metal-related complaints were linked to the all-metal device.

A spokesman for Zimmer Holdings said the Times review was “in the ballpark” of the company’s assessment of the drug administration’s filings. A DePuy spokeswoman declined to disclose the number of A.S.R. complaints that the company forwarded to the F.D.A. She maintained that the Pinnacle was performing well.

DePuy, Zimmer and another producer of metal hips, Wright Medical, declined to discuss the study proposals they had submitted to the F.D.A. to comply with its May order. A fourth company, Biomet, said it had proposed mounting a study of 400 patients who received its devices that would draw in part on studies already under way. The F.D.A. declined to release producers’ proposals, saying that they contained “confidential commercial information.” The agency has until November to decide on the plans’ adequacy.

In an effort to recruit patients, companies have recently contacted, researchers said, health systems like Kaiser Permanente and hospitals that operate their own implant registries.

Meanwhile, researchers say it may be a year before standard protocols are formulated that may be central to the future studies, like a uniform procedure to measure metallic ions in a patient’s blood or how to calibrate diagnostic equipment to best detect tissue damage.

U.S. advisers call for new medical device regime

Tuesday, August 2nd, 2011

Please read this latest article published on Reuters regarding new medical device regime:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/29/us-medical-device-regime-idUSTRE76S4D720110729

(Reuters) – An advisory group said the U.S. fast-track approval process for medical devices is fatally flawed and should be replaced, but the Food and Drug Administration said the recommendation was a non-starter.

The FDA had asked for the Institute of Medicine report as part of a broad agency review of its device unit, an area dogged by high staff turnover, funding woes and major recalls in recent year of devices ranging from artificial hips to heart defibrillators.

The IOM found the fast-track approval process, called 510(k), does not adequately protect patients and recommended a more thorough approval process likely to raise the costs for device makers with pre-market and post-market device reviews.

“What we are recommending is that the 510(k) is fatally flawed in terms of it not evaluating safety and effectiveness of a device,” said Dr. David Challoner, chairman of the IOM’s committee.

But the finding was swiftly rejected by the FDA’s top device official.

“FDA believes that the 510(k) process should not be eliminated, but we are open to additional proposals and approaches for continued improvement of our device review programs,” Dr. Jeffrey Shuren, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in a statement.

The 510(k) program allows medical devices to get to market faster if they are “substantially equivalent” to an existing product.

Critics say the accelerated 510(k) process is too widely used and leads to inadequate testing for some risky devices, but it is defended by the industry as necessary to speed technologies to patients.

The medical device industry has argued for either leaving the 510(k) process as it is or further streamlining the approval process. Most new medical devices — about 4,000 in 2009 — are cleared through the accelerated program.

The industry group Advanced Medical Technology Association, or AdvaMed, said Congress and the FDA should not seriously consider the report’s conclusions.

“(The report) proposes abandoning efforts to address the serious problems with the administration of the current program by replacing it at some unknown date with an untried, unproven and unspecified new legal structure,” AdvaMed’s CEO and president Stephen Ubl said. “This would be a disservice to patients and the public health.”

The FDA has proposed changes, including the possibility of creating a new category of more risky devices that would require more data to win approval.

But the IOM committee said the FDA should not waste its limited resources on changing the current program. Instead, the committee said the FDA should focus on developing a new framework.

High-profile incidents include a massive recall last year of artificial hips by Johnson & Johnson’s DePuy unit. Some 93,000 patients worldwide had that line of hip implant.

Automated external defibrillators, used in public places such as airports to revive cardiac arrest victims, have also made up a significant portion of 510(k) recalls in recent years. Health officials are looking at thousands of reports of malfunctions which may have led to patient harm or death.

Medical devices range from simple bandages to complex implants such as pacemakers, stents and artificial knees. Other than Johnson & Johnson, the largest medical-device makers include Medtronic Inc, Boston Scientific Corp and Abbott Laboratories Inc.

The IOM suggested the FDA start collecting information to build the new process, including post-market data for devices. Congress should then enact legislation to design the regulatory framework, according to the report.

“A new system needs to be put in place that will be more effective especially in post-market surveillance,” said Challoner.

News Report – Real People Struggling with the Adverse Effects of Defective Metal-on-Metal Hip Implants

Monday, May 16th, 2011

Over the last two years, Depuy’s ASR hip implant has received nationwide attention.   Depuy, the orthopedic division of Johnson & Johnson, recalled the faulty metal-on-metal hip replacement last August amid hundreds of lawsuits.

The defective ASR hip implant was based on an earlier type of replacement.  Because of this loophole, the ASR design did not have to go through the standard clinical trials required by the United States Food and Drug Administration.

Many patients who received the now-defunct ASR hip implant have undergone a second surgery to have it removed.  Other patients are awaiting revision surgery.  These patients are suffering side effects from metal particles released into the body as the metal ball and socket grind against each other.

One news station tells the story of a San Francisco woman dealing with excruciating pain from a faulty Depuy hip implant.  Unfortunately, she is only one of tens of thousands of patients who received the recalled ASR hip replacement.  For the aging U.S. population, thousands more patients may be at risk.

Free Legal Consultation

If you or a loved one has been injured by the defective ASR hip implant or other orthopedic device, contact our office today.  We have assisted hundreds of injured patients to receive the recovery to which they were entitled.  Let us help you.  All consultations are 100% free.  We can sit down with you and explain your options.

New York Times Report – “Hip Makers Told to Study More Data”

Friday, May 13th, 2011

The New York Times is reporting that the United States Food and Drug Administration has ordered all makers of metal-on-metal artificial hips to conduct studies of the implants.  Over the past two years, researchers have linked the faulty metal-on-metal hip replacements to high rates of early failure and serious health effects, including soft-tissue damage and permanent disability in some patients.  

FDA Orders Manufacturers to Conduct Studies

The FDA’s order forces makers of metal-on-metal hip implants to perform studies of patients who received the defective device to determine whether the implants are shedding high levels of metallic debris.  Earlier this year, the British Orthopaedic Association found that the Depuy ASR hip implant was failing in one-half of the patients who received it within six years after implant.

According to the New York Times, Dr. William H. Maisel, the deputy director for science at the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, has stated that the order marks the broadest use of the agency’s authority to conduct studies of devices after approval for sale.  The FDA is seeking information about all metal-on-metal implants, not any single manufacturers device. 

Dr. Maisel has stated that there are significant enough medical concerns to warrant a broad review.  He points out that problems are specific to the metal-on-metal implants, which have been produced by 20 different manufacturers and broadly used in the United States.  Dr. Maisel has explained, “Our concern is the product, not about a manufacturer.”

The FDA has indicated that postmarket studies are necessary where an implant’s failure could have serious consequences.  Other concerns are also apparent.

The agency’s action could also prompt increased scrutiny of regulatory policies that allow implants like metal-on-metal hips to be approved for sale with little, if any, clinical testing in patients.  In addition, the F.D.A.’s oversight of hip implants has lagged that in other countries where registries follow the failure rate of orthopedic implants in patients.

Metal-on-Metal Hip Implants Failing at Unusually High Rates

Metal-on-metal hips implants use ball and socket components that are made from metals such as cobalt and chromium.  Until the last couple years, when manufacturers began recalling metal-on-metal implants, these devices accounted for one-third of the 250,000 hip replacement procedures preformed each year in the United States.

But over the last two years, the use of [metal-on-metal] implants has fallen off in part amid reports that they were prone to early failure and that some patients had developed serious health problems related to particles of metallic debris that are shed by the devices as they wear.

The New York Times reports that just this year, the British Orthopaedic Association reported that Johnson & Johnson’s Depuy ASR hip implant was expected to fail in one-half of all patients who received it within six years after surgery.  Depuy, which has recently undergone leadership changes, recalled the faulty hip implant last August.

The British Orthopaedic Association has also reviewed hospital data.

[T]he early failure rate for all-metal hips made by other manufacturers was higher than expected, ranging from 12 to 15 percent within five years after implant.  Artificial hips are designed to last for 15 years or more.

Under the FDA order, manufacturers will have 30 days to submit thier proposed studies to the FDA and are ”expected to collect information from patients who received the devices, including taking blood samples to determine the levels of metallic ion in their systems.”  The makers of the defective hip implants, including Zimmer, Stryker, Biomet, and Wright Medical, are also required to determine how frequently the devices are failing.

Free Legal Consultation

If you or someone you know has experienced problems with a hip implant or other medical implant device, you may have a valid legal claim.  Contact our office today to find out about your legal rights.  All consultations are free. 

Our experienced and professional attorneys have helped hundreds of patients receive the recovery to which they are legally entitled.  You should know your options and we can help.  Call Joshua S. Kincannon at 1-877-ATTY-247 to speak to a hip implant litigation specialist or visit www.defectivejoints.com and submit a contact form.

Recall: Depuy ASR XL Hip Cup

Wednesday, April 27th, 2011
Last year, on August 26, 2010, DePuy Orthopaedics, (a division of Johnson and Johnson), finally announced that it would recall the DePuy ASR XL Hip Cup.  The DePuy ASR Cups failed earlier than anticipated causing implant patients to undergo asecondary revision surgery.
 

DePuy Hip Implant models under recall:

  • - DePuy ASR XL Acetabular System
  • - ASR Hip Resurfacing System

(more…)

FDA Launches Website Dedicated to the Unique Risks of Metal-on-Metal Hip Implants

Thursday, March 31st, 2011

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has launched a new website dedicated to concerns about metal-on-metal (MoM) hip replacement systems.

According to the FDA, patients should know that all artificial hip replacement systems have risks related to implant or material wear.   However, metal-on-metal hip replacement systems have unique risks.

The FDA explains that “[b]ecause the metal ball and the metal cup slide against each other during walking or running, some tiny metal particles may wear off of the device and enter into the space around the implant.”  Metal ions and particles from metal-on-metal implants may even get into the bloodstream. (more…)

The Real Story of Patients Injured by Defective Depuy ASR Hip Implants

Friday, March 25th, 2011

For quite a while now, the commentators here at DefectiveJoints.com have been following the continuing problems of Johnson & Johnson’s Depuy Orthopaedics division, which makes medical device implants. 

Last August, Johnson & Johnson issued a recall of its Depuy ASR hip implant due to continuing reports of the faulty nature of the defective replacement.  Since then, the copany has faced a growing number of problems.

There has been a marked decline in the value of J&J stock.  The president of Depuy Orthopaedics, David Floyd, has announced his resignation.  And patients across the country have filed over 600 lawsuits based on injuries caused by the faulty Depuy hip implants.

But the story of those patients who have been injured by these defectively manufactured hip replacements has gone largely untold.  This is why I was so happy to come across a recent news report out of Minnesota highlighting the patients’ side of this story. (more…)

Update: DePuy Recalls Defective A.S.R. Hip Implant, But High Failure Rates Continue

Friday, February 4th, 2011

Depuy ASR Hip RecallThis past December 2010, the New York Times reported that Johnson & Johnson’s DePuy A.S.R. hip implants have been “failing worldwide at unusually high rates after just a few years.”Despite being promoted as a breakthrough in hip replacements, the faulty DePuy A.S.R. (which stands for Articular Surface Replacement) is now being called “one of the most troubled orthopedic implants of the past decade.”

Although evidence of the defective A.S.R. hip implant had been mounting for years, DePuy Orthopaedics, a division of Johnson & Johnson and the world’s leading manufacturer of hip implants, has continued to claim that there were no problems with the troubled A.S.R.  (more…)

Urgent – Depuy ASR Hip Cup Pulled From US Market

Friday, June 18th, 2010

Depuy ASR Cup

In March of 2010, Depuy finally halted sales of its ASR metal on metal hip implant.  While Depuy did not announce a formal recall of the device, and maintains that it is not defective, it is curious that they pulled the device from the market in December of 2009 in Australia, where the National Device Registry there showed alarmingly high failure rates of this device, yet continued to sell it in the United States, which also happens to be Depuy’s largest market.  Depuy continued to sell this device to unsuspecting patients throughout the country despite the fact that the FDA has received approximately 300 complaints regarding the Depuy ASR cup since 2008.

The alleged problems with this implant are numerous and very serious.  Some experts feel that the design of the ASR XL cup is too shallow, resulting in hip implant dislocations.  Further, studies have shown that the metallic debris caused by the friction of these implants is causing metallosis, an allergic reaction that causes the tissues surrounding the joint to darken or turn black and often causing tumors in the area surrounding the implant.  While not conclusive at this point, other studies suggest that this metal wear debris can affect organs away from the implant itself, as both Cobalt and Chromium (the elements which make up the implants) can be hazardous to humans, and in some cases are considered carcinogenic.  You can read more about the problems with metal-on-metal implants HERE.

The Depuy ASR Cup was cleared by the FDA in 2005 via a process known as the 510(k) approval process.  This process allows a manufacturer to obtain market approval with very little clinical testing of the device.  All the manufacturer has to argue is that the device is “substantially equivalent” to a device that is already on the market, and they can get approval.  For more information about the 510(k) approval process versus the more rigorous PMA process, click HERE.

If you or a loved one believes that they may have a Depuy ASR hip implant and would like more information, please contact us immediately for a fee consultation.

Hip Resurfacing vs. Total Hip Replacement

Thursday, June 17th, 2010

Hip resurfacing has recently become a very popular alternative to total hip replacement.  Proponents argue that it is a less invasive procedure that preserves more healthy bone.  However, the differences between total hip replacement and hip resurfacing are not as dramatic as one might think.  In this video Dr. Ball explains the differences between the procedures and helps us to understand the risks and benefits of hip resurfacing…