A consumer recently filed a Stryker femoral head lawsuit against Howmedica alleging that her hip implant was defective and caused complications resulting in revision surgery.

Plaintiff Verlene T. says in her recently filed a Stryker femoral head lawsuit that she was implanted with the LFIT femoral head in her right hip in November 2012. After she allegedly experienced complications from metallic debris, the LFIT femoral head was removed during revision surgery in August 2016.

The LFIT V40 femoral head is part of the Stryker hip implant, according to the lawsuit. The femoral head fits together with the femoral stem in a “taper fit”, an angular mismatch used to obtain fixation.

However, the Stryker femoral head lawsuit claims that this fit is faulty. Allegedly due to “poor design and material choices”, micro fretting may occur at the junction which released metallic debris into Verlene’s body.

“Stryker’s V40 tapers are more prone to in vivo motion, fretting, corrosion and production of metallic debris than other commercially available femoral replacement systems,” states the Stryker femoral head lawsuit.

The Stryker femoral head lawsuit also claims that, in extreme cases, the micro fretting can cause the femoral head to completely fall off the femoral stem. This dramatic failure is called catastrophic dissociation. The Stryker LFIT V40 femoral head is allegedly the only commercially available product to have this catastrophic failure recorded.

According to the Stryker femoral head lawsuit, the metallic debris released by fretting can cause adverse tissue reactions, tissue death, fluid collections, pseudotumor formation, and chronic pain. These side effects can allegedly lead to patients needing revision surgery.

Following the influx of complications being reported, certain lots of the femoral head were recalled in August 2016. However, the recall allegedly minimized the gravity and magnitude of the problem and gave the impression that the issue was only found in a select number of individuals. The Stryker femoral head lawsuit claims that the recall should have been more informative.

“The recall notice failed to advise surgeons that they should notify their patients of the recall or that the surgeons should pursue any specific follow up of their at-risk patients,” the Stryker femoral head lawsuit claims.

The Stryker femoral head lawsuit aims to hold Howmedica accountable for manufacturing and distributing an allegedly defective product. Verlene argues that Howmedica had a duty to its consumers to not distribute a defective product and to sufficiently warn their consumers of the risks.

Verlene accuses Howmedica of negligence, defective design, manufacturing defect, failure to warn, breach of warranties, negligent misrepresentation, loss of consortium, unjust enrichment, and violation of consumer protection laws.

The Stryker femoral head lawsuit seeks compensatory damages, statutory damages, restitution, disgorgement, court costs, and attorneys’ fees.

The Stryker Femoral Head Lawsuit is Case No. 1:18-cv-11849-IT and is part of the Stryker MDL, In re: Stryker LFIT V40 Femoral Head Products Liability Litigation, Case No. 1:17-md-02768-IT, in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.