Multiple plaintiffs have come together to lodge a Stryker hip implant lawsuit based on allegations that they suffered similar side effects and pain after going through the implant surgery.

The Stryker hip implant lawsuit says that the devices created by the manufacturer were intended to replace the diseased or damaged anatomy of patients, but instead, patients were allegedly left to cope with painful side effects following implantation. The only way for many of these symptoms to be addressed was for the patient to go through a revision surgery, which carries its own risks and problems.

Patients who have filed the Stryker hip implant lawsuit allege that the company knew about the risk for failure and defects once implanted in a patient, but never told doctors or potential users. For that reason, the patients were allegedly left to suffer and had to consider advanced treatment options like revision surgery.

The Stryker hip implant lawsuit also raises concerns about the way in which the device was approved to bring to market. When a device maker gets approval through the FDA’s 510(k) program, as the Stryker hip implant was, the device on a so-called “fast track” to get to market. This means the manufacturer doesn’t have to deal with all the traditional application requirements regarding comprehensive clinical testing.

In addition to general device failure, which many patients have reported to their doctors and the FDA, and allege in the Stryker hip implant lawsuit, the metal pieces inside the implant may break down and allow metal particles to migrate throughout the body, causing a condition known as metallosis.

When a patient is afflicted by metallosis, the patient might also suffer tissue necrosis and adverse local tissue reaction.

In 2016, amidst many similar claims brought forth by patients who experienced problems and device failure after implantation, the defendants in the Stryker hip implant lawsuit issued an urgent medical device recall notification affecting the LFIT V40 heads made prior to 2011.

This recall was started largely due to the fact that so many patients in different locations experienced similar side effects related to an implant problem known as taper lock failure.

The plaintiffs who filed the Stryker hip implant lawsuit argue that the maker of the device knew about the risks of failure and side effects, or would have discovered them had the device gone through the traditional FDA approval clinical trial process. The plaintiffs argue that they might not have made the decision to receive the implant in the first place if they had been properly educated about the possibility of breakdown of metal particles or other defects linked to the hip device.

When a device manufacturer is accused of widespread problems with a device that should have been fixed or at least included in a warning, plaintiffs might use litigation as their form of recourse to hold the device maker accountable. When many plaintiffs have similar allegations, this can be organized as a class action lawsuit.

The Stryker Hip Implant Lawsuit is Case No. 1:17-md-02768 filed in the United States District Court District of Massachusetts.