For someone who’s already undergone primary hip replacement surgery, the prospect of further surgery to replace a failed implant can be daunting.

Hip revision surgery may relieve the symptoms associated with implant failure, but it can expose the patient to a whole other round of complications.

Pros and Cons of Hip Revision Surgery

Hip revision surgery
may be necessary to relieve the symptoms of a failed hip implant. Some prosthetic hips tend to become loose or unstable, causing pain and possible dislocation. Implants can also become infected, in which case they must be removed while the infection is treated, then replaced.

Metal-on-metal hip implants can present their own sort of complications that can lead to the need of hip replacement revision surgery. In some patients, these implants can shed metal particles into the surrounding tissue, causing a toxic reaction known as metallosis.

Metallosis can be associated with symptoms like severe joint pain, loosening of the implant, death of tissue surrounding the joint, and deterioration of the bone.

A successful hip revision surgery may be very effective in relieving the symptoms of a failed implant. The surgery itself, however, is more involved than a primary hip replacement, and it re-exposes the patient to the risks of surgical complications. Recovery from hip revision surgery is also more involved than that of a primary hip replacement.

Legal Claims Over Metal Hip Implants

Failed metal hip implants have been the subject of a number of recent lawsuits against the implants’ manufacturers. One couple from New Jersey recently brought a claim against Biomet Inc. and its related companies over complications that necessitated a hip replacement revision procedure.

Plaintiff William N. says he underwent a total replacement of his right hip in April 2009, receiving a Biomet M2a Magnum hip implant.  He alleges he had to undergo hip revision surgery in March 2014. A biopsy taken around the same time found evidence of synovitis in his left hip, which William says was “consistent with metal prosthetic failure.”

According to William, the Biomet M2a is a metal-on-metal hip implant system that uses metal bearing surfaces where other types of implants use a polyethylene or plastic liner. The metal-on-metal design was marketed with the claim that it would last longer than other types of implants, William says.

But his lawsuit notes that other metal-on-metal hip implants received some attention due to their unusually high rates of failure. He says that Biomet received reports that the metal ball and socket of the M2a Magnum created metal debris in the course of normal use, spreading throughout the surrounding tissue and causing inflammation and damage.

He also cites reports received by the FDA of premature failure of the M2a Magnum. These reports show some implants failed due to “component loosening, dislocation, component wear, and fracture.” He argues these failures were due to defective design.

William’s wife Janet is bringing her own claim for loss of consortium, which is a type of claim that seeks compensation for the loss of her husband’s “services, comfort, society, and attention.”

The couple’s claim is part of a collection of several similar lawsuits alleging defects in the Biomet M2a Magnum hip implants. These claims have been consolidated into a single multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana.

The pending Biomet multidistrict litigation is MDL No. 2391. The Hip Implant Lawsuit is Case No. 3:16-CV-00021, in the same court.