An Alabama resident claims that Stryker Corporation failed to adequately warn consumers about the risks and severity of complication caused by the company’s Rejuvenate hip replacement implant.

Plaintiff Patricia Sherrill has filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against Stryker Corporation and its subsidiaries, claiming she sustained adverse and systemic reactions caused by a defective Stryker Rejuvenate hip system. Her Stryker hip lawsuit alleges these complications caused her to become permanently disabled as a direct result of Stryker’s negligent manufacturing of the Rejuvenate hip implant.

Sherrill received the Stryker Rejuvenate hip implant in August 2011 and claims that she suffered local tissue reactions as well as metallosis, which subsequently forced her to have the hip replacement permanently removed. Sherrill alleges Stryker knew or should have known of the risks associated with Rejuvenate hip replacement complications but continued to manufacture and market the device without adequate warnings, testing, or approval.

What’s The Problem With The Stryker Rejuvenate Hip Implant?

The Stryker Rejuvenate hip implant is different from other hip replacement devices because it is not a metal-on-metal hip replacement device. Instead, the Rejuvenate hip replacement device, which uses a ceramic component, was meant as an alternative to the metal-on-metal devices.

The Rejuvenate hip system was marketed to younger patients as a modular hip replacement, meaning the components were custom-made to fit patients better, which was supposed to result in longer-lasting hip replacement devices that offered a better range of motion.

Some patients reportedly developed metallosis after having the Stryker Rejuvenate hip device implanted. Although it was initially believed that such a condition was not possible because the Stryker Rejuvenate hip implant does not have a metal-on-metal ball and socket design, the Stryker hip device has a metal neck piece that can, under some conditions, rub against a metal stem, causing metallic debris to come loose.

Stryker has responded to concerns about the Rejuvenate hip implant failure rate by alleging patients did not properly undergo rehabilitation following surgery, or by blaming doctors’ implantation techniques. In a Product Correction Bulletin (04/25/12), Stryker officials noted, “Factors such as diabetes and infection may play a role in potential corrosion of an implant as these conditions may affect the pH of the tissue surrounding the implant.”

What is Metallosis?

Metallosis is an adverse tissue reaction to heavy metals in the body. It can cause pain, limited mobility, failure of the hip joint, pseudotumors, dissolution of the bone, DNA changes and chromosomal aberrations.

Patients who have had their Stryker Rejuvenate hip implant device fail may have undergone revision surgery. Typically, hip implants are expected to last 15 to 20 years. In some cases, the Stryker Rejuvenate hip implants are failing in less than five years.

Stryker Rejuvenate Hip Implant Recall

In July 2012, Stryker voluntarily recalled its Rejuvenate modular-neck stems from the market due to reports of fretting and corrosion. According to some reports, the FDA received two adverse events linked to the recalled devices, including one in which the device was removed.

Stryker Rejuvenate Hip Implant Lawsuits

Since the Stryker Orthopedics Rejuvenate Modular Hip System Recall last July 2012, an increasing number of Stryker hip replacement lawsuits continue to be filed nationwide. The Stryker hip claimants allege complications including metallosis, osteolysis (dissolution of bone) and necrosis in tissue surrounding the implant.

The current Stryker Rejuvenate Hip Implant Lawsuit is Patricia Sherrill and Joe Sherrill v. Stryker Corporation, Inc, et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-01661-UNAS-RDP, in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama.