The US Food and Drug Administration’s approval of Medtronic’s Infuse bone stimulator was only for use in spinal fusion surgeries of the lumbar spine or lower back and certain oral and dental procedures. However, it has been used for unapproved or off-label purposes based on surgeon’s discretion.  It is estimated that 85% of the uses of Infuse are off-label.

Safety Issues Involving the Medtronic Infuse Bone Graft Come to Light

Dr. Eugene Carragee, a Stanford University School of Medicine professor and editor-in-chief of the Spine Journal, recently pointed to evidence that some patients using the Infuse Bone Graft suffered serious health complications such as cancers (pancreatic, prostate and breast), infections, sterility in men, bone disintegration, and severe back and leg pain.  In his interview to Reuters, Dr. Carragee discussed his findings that showed BMP in Infuse leads to 2.5 times greater risk of developing cancer one year after it is used and five times increased risk after three years.

The US Senate and the Department of Justice has also raised concerns regarding the negative side effects of using Medtronic Infuse Bone Graft for spine surgery. According to the Senate Finance Committee, the clinical trails conducted by Medtronic to test the safety and effectiveness of Infuse did not report any medial complications as a result of product usage. The Medtronic-funded internal study stated that the bone growth as a result of Infuse did not have any harmful effect on the patients. This was refuted by a comprehensive study that showed neurological impairment and other complications associated with irregular bone growth caused by the Infuse Bone Graft.

The Senate Finance Committee also highlighted in their letter to Medtronic that one of the authors of the now debunked clinical trials received royalty payments from Medtronic in excess of several million dollars.  That trial failed to report Infuse’s link to higher rates of temporary or permanent sterility in men.

Medtronic Infuse Bone Graft Lawsuits

The use of Medtronic Infuse Bone Graft in the cervical spine has resulted in serious problems. Keefe Bartels is currently screening for cases in which a patient has used the Medtronic Infuse Bone Graft and later suffered any of the following:

• Sterility

• Cancer

• Hypertrophic Bone Growth, and other abnormal growth problems

• Death

If you or your family members have undergone cervical spine fusion or neck surgery and been treated with Medtronic Infuse Bone Graft, contact our competent lawyers at Keefe Bartels for a thorough evaluation on your case.  All consultations are free of charge.

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 BARRY MEIER and JANET ROBERTS

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.

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.

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.

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.

Hip replacement patients want to know how they can tell if they have a faulty implant.  They want to know what to do if they discover that they are affected by one of the hip replacement recalls.  Today, with help from the hip implant specialists at KeefeBartels and DefectiveJoints.com, patients can find assistance and answers to many of their questions.

Defective Hip Implant Symptoms

Hip implant surgery is an  invasive and painful procedure.  Most patient simply hope to walk again without pain. However, many patients are discovering that instead of moving on with their lives, they now suffer from more pain than before.  And many patients will have to undergo painful revision surgery in order to deal with a faulty hip implant.

Because of the pain and recovery associated with hip implant surgery, many patients find it difficult to determine whether continuing pain is normal after surgery or whether implant-related complications are causing the pain.  Patients should know that symptoms of complications include:

• * Pain continuing weeks or months after surgery
• * Pain worsening after surgery
• * Swollenness or tenderness in the hip area
• * Increased difficulty walking
• * Grinding, squeaking or popping noises in the hip area
• * Loosening or instability of the hip
• * General discomfort
• * Trouble rising from a seated position

Non-Obvious Symptoms of Faulty Hip Implants

Not all symptoms are obvious, and not all seem related to the hip implant.  Some of the most dangerous problems may not be apparent at all.  Metal-on-metal implants, such as the faulty Depuy ASR, cause problems of metal toxicity, which occu

rs when the metal ball rubs against the metal socket, releasing microscopic metal particles into the blood stream and surrounding tissues.

Patients who received one of metal-on-metal implants should get a blood test to determine whether there has been a release of dangerous metal particles.  Symptoms of metal toxicity are subtle and easily overlooked, including nausea, fatigue, and even memory loss.

Recalls of Metal-on-Metal Hip Implants

Defective metal-on-metal implants, such as the Depuy ASR and Zimmer Durom Cup, have recently been recalled.  Patients who have one of these faulty  implants should have their metal levels checked regularly, whether or not symptoms are apparent and should also contact a legal specialist to learn about their rights.

Sadly, too often many patients wait too long before getting legal advice.   When they finally consult with an attorney, they may discover that the statute of limitations has expired.   And once that happens, the patient has virtually no chance of getting the recovery he or she deserves.

If you have  had hip replacement surgery and are still in pain, don’t let the statute of limitations run out.   You may have one of the recalled DePuy ASR XL implants, a Zimmer Durom Cup implant, or a Stryker Trident implant.  Even if you don’t know what type of implant you have, if you are in pain or experiencing any of the syptoms mentioned above, you should probably consult an attorney.

Free Legal Consultation

The experienced legal professionals at KeefeBartels offer free consultations in multiple locations across New Jersey.  If you or a loved one is suffering from a defective hip replacement or any other faulty implant, do not wait.  Contact us today and let us discuss your rights with you.  You should know your options.

Conducted over a 1-year period at 7 different clinics, a new study casts doubt on earlier research suggesting that the Artelon CMC spacer would produce better results than those of traditional osteoarthritis treatment methods.

Now, top surgeons say that the Artelon CMC spacer does not produce superior results.  In fact, the spacer may lead to additional pain, swelling and even infection. Some patients will require revision surgery to remove the faulty spacer.

Artelon’s CMC Spacer

The Artelon CMC spacer is a tiny T-shaped component that is surgically inserted into the carpometacarpal (CMC) joint at the base of the thumb.  The surgical implant is made from Artelon, a porous biomaterial that is supposed to aid in the growth of native tissue.

The spacer acts as a treatment for osteoarthritis, a painful degenerative joint disorder that affects nearly 27 million adults in the United States.

Since 2005, the Swedish company Artimplant AB has marketed the Artelon CMC spacer in the United States through the U.S. company Small Bone Innovations.  Artimplant AB owns the Artelon patent and claims that the Artelon CMC spacer offers a treatment for osteoarthritis that is more effective than the traditional tendon interposition arthroplasty.

 Early Research was Too Limited

In 2005, doctors conducted an early pilot study on the effectiveness of the Artelon CMC spacer.  That study was limited, however, to the patients at only one clinic. 

Early results suggested that after an Artelon CMC spacer was implanted, the patient’s “pinch strength”  would be “statistically significantly greater than after tendon interposition arthroplasty.”  However, a group of surgeons, some of whom had participated in the original research, have now determined that these earlier results were not completely accurate.

New Research Raises Doubts about Artelon Spacer

New research finds that patients who have received the Artelon CMC spacer are 29% more likely to present swelling. Moreover, due to substantial pain, 12 patients needed to have the spacer removed within 2 years of surgery.

The researchers used methods that included thorough patient selection, a large number of patients, and 7 hospitals.  Altogether, they monitored over 100 patients suffering from osteoarthritis.

The study finds:

“[C]hemical and physical properties of the biomaterials themselves may lead to chronic inflammation whereas motion at the implant site by the biomaterial may also produce chronic inflammation.”

Further, the study shows that the traditional well-proven method of tendon interposition arthroplasty, which is favored by a majority of hand surgeons, may still be the best option for patients suffering from osteoarthritis in the thumb.

Free Consultation with Artelon Thumb Spacer Attorney

If you or a loved one has been injured as a result of a defective Artelon CMC spacer or other medical device implant, please contact our office for a free consultation.  All consultations are free.  For many years, our attorneys have sucessfully helped injured patients  to recover.   You do not have to suffer alone.  Find out your legal rights and how we can help you acheive the recovery that you’re entitled to. 

Last year, on August 26, 2010, DePuy Orthopaedics, (a division of Johnson and Johnson), finally

DePuy Hip Implant models under recall:

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

Implants for the DePuy ASR XL Acetabular System and the ASR Hip Resurfacing System totaled approximately 93,000 worldwide.  In 2009, however, due to faultinesss, Johnson & Johnson discontinued these implant mechanisms.

The DePuy ASR XL Acetabular System and the ASR Hip Resurfacing System were made popular with younger patients whom, under surgeon’s recommendation, were fitted with these implants for better stability and less risk of dislocation post-op.

DePuy said it intends to cover “reasonable and customary costs of monitoring and treatment for services, including revision surgeries, associated with the recall of ASR.”

Patients must understand that this does not address the pain and suffering they have endured due to the implantation of this defective device.

Free Consultation with Hip Implant Legal Specialists

If you or a loved one have had a hip replacement including the DePuy ASR XL Hip Cup being recalled by DePuy, contact us right away.  Keefe Bartels has been litigating knee and hip implant cases like the DePuy ASR Hip Recall for over a decade.  We have litigated cases against all of the major hip implant manufacturers, including Depuy, in courts across the nation, and have recovered millions of dollars on behalf of patients injured by defective knee and hip implants such as the Depuy ASR.

All consultations are 100% free of charge.  You will speak to an experienced attorney about your rights when you contact us.  Don’t be lured into contacting some national marketing firm that will screen your case and then refer your case to someone you do not know.  Ask them who will be handling your case, and ask to speak to that attorney.  Ask how many hip recall cases they have handled.  Ask them if they have litigated against DePuy previously.  Ask them what kind of recoveries they have gotten for their clients.  The right attorney is the crucial first step for you in recovering your quality of life and recovering for your injuries suffered due to the defective and recalled DePuy ASR Hip Cup.

Please fill out the contact us form today and you will receive a call from an attorney in our defective implant department within 24 hours.  You can also call us 24 hours a day, 7 days a week at 877-ATTY-24-7.

On April 12, 2011, Judge Moss approved a request made by plaintiffs’ counsel to coordinate these defective implant cases.  The announcement comes as a relief for patients who have experienced problems with the defective Artelon Spacer implants.

With the streamlined process of the mass tort program, the court has recognized that the claims of these patients must be expedited within the justice system.  Now, complaints will be handled as one unified program and managed by Pennsylvania’s Complex Litigation Center.

Potential victims of the faulty Artelon implants should know that a mass tort is not the same as a class action lawsuit.  Class actions can consist of hundreds or thousands of faceless plaintiffs, resulting in impersonal treatment.

A lawsuit designated as mass tort is anything but impersonal.  Individuals who have experienced problems with defective Artelon Spacers are encouraged to retain counsel to represent their particular case.  Each claim should receive individual legal consideration and attention.  Plaintiffs benefit from mass tort designation because it makes the settlement and legal process quicker, less expensive, and more efficient.

Artelon CMC Spacer

The Artelon CMC Spacer was developed by Artimplant AB and marketed by Small Bone Innovations, Inc.  In 2007, the Food and Drug Administration approved the device for use in the United States.

The device was intended to treat early and mid-stage osteoarthritis that occurs in the carpometacarpal thumb joint.  Osteoarthritis causes the cartilage to breakdown until the thumb joint can no longer provide cushioning for the bones.  The Artelon CMC Spacer is supposed to provide a substitute cushion.

The implant only requires outpatient surgery.  Doctors place a T-shaped plastic gauze near the base of the thumb at the wrist joint, where the first carpometacarpal joint is located.  The spacer is “interpositional,” meaning that it goes between the trapezium bone and the first metacarpal bone.

Artelon CMC Spacer Failures

Artimplant AB and Small Bone Innovations, Inc., claim that the spacer is biocompatible and degradable.  They contend that the device offers joint stability, faster recovery, and less pain.

Unfortunately, the manufacturer’s claims have not been born out over the last few years. The FDA has received numerous adverse event reports related to defective Artelon CMC Spacers.  Moreover, recent medical studies have shown that the Artelon CMC Spacer is failing at a high rate.

On many occasions, patients have had to undergo painful revision surgeries to have the defective Artelon implant removed.  Patients complain of inflammation and swelling.  Other symptoms include:

• - Shooting or burning pain
• - Inflammation
• - Swelling
• - Limited range of motion with hand
• - Thumb has become misshapen

Some patients have even reported that the Artelon Spacer breaks apart while in the hand, requiring immediate secondary surgery.  In many cases, these additional procedures require the surgeon to remove tendons from other areas of the body in order to repair the thumb joint.  Still other patients have experienced permanently misshapen thumbs as a result of the faulty Artelon Spacer.

Free Consultation with Experienced Artelon Spacer Attorney

If you or a loved one has suffered from pain, inflammation, limited range of motion, swelling, or if your thumb has become misshapen, please do not hesitate to contact us.  If you have experienced any of these side effects or had to undergo painful revision surgeries, you may have a valid Artelon CMC Spacer lawsuit.

All consultations are free.  You should not have to suffer alone.  Our attorneys help patients who suffer from defective Artelon Spacers or other faulty implants.  Call today Toll Free at 877-288-9247 to set up an appointment to meet with an experienced Artelon CMC Spacer attorney.