Saturday, November 17, 2012

New Jersey Sees Consolidation of Stryker Rejuvenate Hip Lawsuits

At least ten Stryker Rejuvenate and ABGII hip implant lawsuits are expected to be centralized in the State of New Jersey before one judge in order to coordinate the handling of the suits. Application for Multi-county Litigation has been made in hopes of consolidating all Rejuvenate and ABGII lawsuits. Class Action Litigation website describes multi-district or multi-county litigation as a procedure utilized in federal and state courts to transfer all pending cases of a similar type before one judge.

Recall of ABGII and Rejuvenate

These lawsuits came quickly on the heels of the recall issued for the Rejuvenate and ABGII by Stryker in July of 2012. At the time of the recall Stryker stated the potential of fretting and corrosion at the modular-neck junction which could lead to metal ions being released into the body. Chronic pain, inflammation, failure of the hip implant, necrosis and metal toxicity are all problems associated with the release of these metal shards into the surrounding tissue and bloodstream. As more hips fail, it is expected that more lawsuits will ensue.

FDA Approval of Stryker Hip Implant Devices

The Stryker Rejuvenate gained FDA approval in June of 2008 and the ABGI followed in November of 2009. It was believed these hip implants would last from 15-20 years under normal wear which was great news for those who wanted their hip implant to last the remainder of their life. Yet soon after the hip implant devices were marketed adverse reports began coming in claiming premature failure which required painful—and potentially dangerous—revision surgery. Most hip replacement systems have a one-piece femoral component yet the updated Stryker design implemented a two piece neck and stem which allowed surgeons the ability to more closely fit the components to the size and activity level of the individual patient.

The Problems With the Rejuvenate and ABGII

The lawsuits filed against Stryker regarding the ABGII and the Rejuvenate allege that the modular neck-stem design can lead to metal ions being released into the body as the components rub against one another. The all-metal hip implants have led to serious issues of metallosis in recipients. It was believed that the ceramic ball and plastic cup liner of the Rejuvenate and ABGII would alleviate that particular safety concern. Unfortunately, both the neck juncture and the trunnions on either end of the neck piece have the potential of corrosion, leading to the release of metal ions into the body. The Stryker Rejuvenate and ABGII are also considered more difficult to remove during revision surgery as the stem component is implanted deeply into the femur and, in many cases must literally be “dug” out. There is the potential of fractures during revision surgery and recovery time is considerably longer than from the original hip implant surgery.

The Future of ABGII and Rejuvenate Lawsuits

An article in the New York Times states that as many as half a million Americans had the metal-on-metal hip implants while estimates for recipients of the Rejuvenate and ABGII are approximately 20,000 Americans. It is believed that a large percentage of these hip implant recipients will eventually have trouble with their implant or be subject to metal toxicity. Recent news reports state that Stryker’s third quarter revenues were extremely lackluster, with a nearly 10 percent drop in sales of hip implants. As the lawsuits continue to be filed it is predicted that revenues of the company may continue to drop.

Author: Sullo & Sullo Attorneys

0 Comments

Categories: ImportedNumber of views: 1280

Tags: Stryker Hip Attorney Stryker Hip Implant Stryker Rejuvenate Hip Lawsuits

Please login or register to post comments.

250,000 CLIENTS REPRESENTED

FREE CASE REVIEW

Full Name* Email* Telephone Number* Are You already a Client?* Type of Case* Tell Us About Your Case*

WARNING: Do not send any information in any email through this website if you consider the information confidential or privileged.

I understand that by submitting my contact information to Sullo & Sullo LLP for review, I consent to messages regarding this legal matter as well as marketing for other potential legal matters in the future without limitation at standard messaging and data rates unless terminated by me in writing. I further understand that my submission of any and all information in response to this website does NOT create a lawyer-client relationship between myself and Sullo & Sullo, LLP and/or its lawyers, and that any and all information submitted is NOT confidential or privileged. I further acknowledge that, unless Sullo & Sullo, LLP subsequently enters into an Attorney-Client relationship with me, any and all information I provide will NOT be treated as confidential or privileged, and any such information may be used against me and/or for the benefit of current or future clients of Sullo & Sullo, LLP. ...READ ENTIRE DISCLAIMER

Receive an Immediate Response

ANDREW SULLO IS A TOP 100 NATIONAL TRIAL LAWYER 2013 • 2014 • 2015 • 2016 • 2017 • 2018 • 2019

Obtener una Respuesta Inmediata

Andrew Sullo – 100 Mejores Abogados Nacional | 2013 • 2014 • 2015 • 2016 • 2017