The experienced attorneys at Reich & Binstock represent clients in metal-on-metal hip implant lawsuits whose experiences demonstrate the futility of presumably good intentions. Recently, medical science has validated the pain and suffering of many metal-on-metal hip implant patients who experienced a prosthesis failure.
The February 2014 edition of the journal Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research published telling research about the relationship between a certain type of implant and the prosthetic wear that can lead to agonizing device failure and, in many cases, revision surgery.
The piece centered on the relationship between the diameter of the femoral head of a hip implant and wear and tear at the implant’s trunnion interface.
First, there needs to be a quick background. The femoral head is the ball of the implant that is surrounded by layers of material and is attached to the pelvis. The stem is the long piece that fits into the patient’s femur. The trunnion is the tapered piece that connects the stem to the ball.
The experiment examined the level of trunnion interface wear as it related to the diameter of the head. The study concluded what many clients in metal-on-metal hip implant lawsuits already learned the hard way.
“Stability improved with increased diameter,” researchers wrote, “although diminishing benefit was seen for sizes of greater than 40 mm. By contrast, contact stress and computed wear at the trunnion interface all increased unabatedly with increasing head size. Increased impaction forces resulted in only small decreases in trunnion wear generation.”
The attorneys at Reich & Binstock have clients who either have suffered or have feared that they may suffer serious complications resulting from wear within metal-on-metal hip implants that churn metal particles into the tissue and sometimes into the bloodstream. Metallosis is such a condition. One issue in metal-on-metal hip implant lawsuits is that the manufacturers either knew or should have known the risks of serious injury and should have done something to ameliorate the likelihood of suffering before regulators in numerous countries, including the U.S., stepped in.
Moreover, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration advised that some medical literature reported that metal-on-metal hip implant injury can be manifested as:
•· General hypersensitivity reaction (skin rash)
•· Cardiomyopathy
•· Neurological changes including sensory changes (auditory or visual impairments)
•· Psychological status change (including depression or cognitive impairment)
•· Renal function impairment
•· Thyroid dysfunction (including neck discomfort, fatigue, weight gain or feeling cold)
The injured patients deserved better from hip implant manufacturers. At Reich & Binstock, experienced attorneys have fought hard to help the victims to receive the compensation that they deserve.
