According to a recent Stryker hip implants lawsuit, Howmedica failed to appropriately warn consumers about the risks associated with their hip replacements.

Plaintiff Joe W. says he was implanted with an LFIT Anatomic CoCr V40 Femoral Head and an Accolade TMZF Femoral Stem in May 2006 a part of hip replacement surgery on his right hip. Due to alleged defects associated with the Stryker hip replacement components, Joe says he had the femoral head explanted in December 2017.

Hip replacement surgery is a fairly common procedure in the United States. It may be required if a patient suffers from condition such as arthritis or experiences a severe injury.

During the surgery, the ball of the hip joint is removed and replaced with an implant such as the Stryker LFIT V40 femoral head. The socket is then also replaced in order for the implant to move smoothly.

After hip replacement surgery, many patients think that their problems are over. However, failure of the hip implant can occur and has been reported by recipients of a Stryker LFIT femoral head.

According to Joe’s lawsuit, the defects associated with the Stryker femoral head are result of fretting between the hip implant components. The femoral head and femoral stem in the Stryker hip are reportedly joined together using a “press fit” which relies on dissimilar angles to obtain fixation.

However, Joe claims the poor design of this union and poor material choices allegedly leads to the two components fretting against each other. This micro-motion reportedly generates metal debris which can cause a variety of complications.

The release of metal debris and degeneration of the union has allegedly led to “catastrophic dissociation,” where the femoral head fell completely off the femoral stem.

Complications allegedly associated with the Stryker hip defects include: loss of mobility, pain, inflammatory response, adverse local tissue reaction, dislocation, joint instability, pain associated with implant loosening, periprosthetic fracture, leg length discrepancy and more.

In some cases, these complications are so severe that they require revision surgery to correct. This surgery involves replacing the defective implant with another model and may be associated with increase risks when compared with initial knee replacement surgery.

In August 2016, the issues associated with the Stryker hip components triggered a recall of certain lots of the LFIT V40 femoral heads. In their recall, Howmedica cited “higher than expected” incidence of taper lock failure.

“Stryker received several complaints describing incidence of harm secondary to taper lock failure for specific lots of numerous catalog numbers of LFIT Anatomic CoCr V40 Femoral Heads,” the FDA recall alert states.

Although Joe acknowledges that the recall states the problem, he argues that Howmedica was intentionally vague in order to downplay the issue. The company allegedly failed to provide advice for surgeons following the recall and did not communicate sufficiently with their consumers.

The Stryker hip implants lawsuit accuses Howmedica of negligence, defective design, manufacturing design, failure to warn, breach of warranties, violation of consumer protection laws, violation of consumer fraud law, negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment.

Joe seeks compensatory damages, statutory damages, restitution, disgorgement, court costs and attorneys’ fees.

The Stryker Hip Implants Lawsuit is Case No. 1:18-cv-12650-IT and is part of the Stryker Hip MDL, In re: Stryker LFIT V40 Femoral Head Products Liability Litigation, Case No. 1:17-md-02768-IT, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.