The DePuy ASR Metal-on-Metal Hip Implant: A Scientific Analysis of its Problems

The last ten years have seen surgical replacement of hip joints with an artificial prosthesis increase significantly. The main reason for this surge in hip replacement surgeries is our aging population. With people living longer, more active lives, degenerating hip joints can put a halt to that activity. From 1997 through 2004, the number of hip replacement surgeries increased nearly 50% and if the trend continues it is estimated that the annual number of hip replacements in the United States will reach 600,000 by 2015.

Factors in Hip Replacement Surgery

Primary reasons for patients undergoing hip replacement surgery include chronic pain, impairment of daily functions and severe arthritis in the hip joint. The most common type of arthritis leading to total hip replacement is osteoarthritis and is generally seen with aging or trauma to the hip joint. In some instances necrosis of the hip can be present, usually caused by a fracture, alcoholism, lupus, or taking steroid drugs such as prednisone. Patients may experience progressively worsening chronic pain which prohibits them from walking, climbing stairs or even getting up from a sitting position.

Types of Hip Implants

There are many different types of hip replacement implant including the metal-on metal, metal-on-polyethylene and metal-on-ceramic as well as the implants which are 100% ceramic or polyethylene. Other than the materials the implant is constructed with, the only other major difference is in how the implant is affixed—it can be cemented to the bone or attached in such a manner that it grows into the patient’s remaining bone. The idea behind the cobalt and chromium metal-on-metal hip implant was to create an implant which would not have to be re-done for fifteen to twenty years—unlike the ceramic and polyethylene hip implants which last approximately 8-12 years. 

“ASR” type Chromium and Cobalt Poisoning also being seen in Pinnacle Hip Implant Recipients

The DePuy ASR metal-on-metal hip implant has repeatedly made the news following a voluntary recall on August 26, 2010. While DePuy’s Pinnacle metal hip implant has not suffered under the recall stigma, many feel that it offers the same risks to implant recipients as the ASR. And, in fact, many attorneys are constantly asked by their clients about the differences between the ASR and the Pinnacle. The primary distinction between the two metal hip devices lies in the fact that the Pinnacle uses an insert liner between the acetabular cup and the femoral head while the ASR does not. It has been theorized that the ASR cup was too shallow for the head, leading to the ball hitting the edge of the cup and metal shavings to shear off into the body, also know as edge-loading.

While the Pinnacle’s cup was designed to give greater depth and allow the femoral head to move more freely within the socket, in some cases it still has been know to cause metallosis in implant recipients when the cobalt and chromium ions migrate around the body. Metal poisoning can cause a wide variety of adverse medical events. Many ASR recipients have had cardiovascular, renal, neurological and thyroid issues although studies done in the 70’s do not definitively tie these metals to cancer. Unfortunately, due to the lack of comprehensive studies on safe levels of cobalt and chromium in the body and the effects of toxic levels, nobody really knows just how dangerous these metals can be should they migrate to the bloodstream. The metal shards can also lodge into the surrounding tissues causing degeneration and destruction.

Attorneys of Sullo & Sullo Seeing DePuy Hip Implant Lawsuits Increasing

While many other firms have seen a drop in the number of metal hip implant clients, Sullo and Sullo attorneys have actually seen those numbers climb. Andrew Sullo, Class Action Lead Counsel & Managing Partner notes that “Although many firms have noticed a slowdown in the number of clients hiring them for DePuy ASR and Pinnacle lawsuits, our firm has not. I believe that is because we are constantly offering our clients new and updated information. Our job is to inform all metal-on-metal hip recipients that even though their hip may not have failed yet, it could and after August 26^th they may lose rights to recover compensation from Johnson and Johnson.”

With the statute of limitations coming up soon on the ASR metal-on-metal hip implant lawsuits, Sullo & Sullo is experiencing an increase in the ASR recipients who are coming forward and asking to be a part of the lawsuit. Many clients in the lawsuit have experienced adverse health effects as a direct result of having an ASR all metal hip implant put into their body.  On the other hand, many have experienced little or no pain with their ASR hip implant but have elected to join the lawsuit that they can be financial protected at a point in the future should their ASR device fail. Through no fault of their own, these people have become victims of a heavily flawed system which allows harmful medical devices to be sold to the public. The ASR was approved in 2005 by the FDA under the controversial 510(k) process which allows medical devices to essentially ride in on the coattails of other medical devices which have come before them. In some cases approval is granted based on a device which has actually been discontinued because of the number of problems associated with it.

Is Joining the DePuy ASR Class Action Lawsuit still an Option for Recalled DePuy ASR Hip Implant Recipients With No Pain?

Andrew Sullo, Class Action Lead Counsel & Managing Partner at Sullo & Sullo is working hard to ensure that every single recipient of the DePuy ASRmetal-on-metal hip implant is fully aware of both the recall on August 26, 2010 and the upcoming statute of limitations expiration for those who reside in states which implement the two-year statute. There are over 40,000 people who have received an ASR implant in the United States. The ASR was approved by the FDA in 2005 and began being widely used by surgeons who believed the metal-on-metal design would last much longer than the metal-on-ceramic or metal-on-polyethylene models.

Unfortunately, adverse health reports began pouring in with over 17,000 such reports received by the FDA regarding these all metal hip implants. Of those thousands of recipients, there are only approximately 6,000 who have joined into the MDL lawsuits against DePuy. While this might cause some to wonder if the risks of the ASR have been exaggerated, there are other factors involved. First of all, many recipients may not have heard the device was recalled or may truly have no idea what type of implant was used in their surgery. Second, many recipients of the ASR and other hip implant devices are senior citizens who may believe the symptoms they are experiencing are related to advancing age rather than attributing them to the ASR implant.

Finally, many of those who have not come forward to take part in the lawsuits state they are not having any problems with the ASR at present, so why would they sue the company? This is very flawed logic in this particular instance. Although the failure rate of the ASR was originally stated by DePuy to be in the 12-13% range—still much higher than the average of .5-5% failure rates—experts in the field have estimated that by six years following the initial surgery nearly 50% of the ASR hip implants will have failed and by eight years following the surgery a staggering 80% will have failed. When you look at those numbers you can see that it is highly likely that at least half of those thousands of people who have not joined into the lawsuit will suffer a hip failure. In fact, Andrew Sullo notes that “More than 50% of our ASR hip recipient docket has already received revisions.”

Chromium and Cobalt Poisoning: What are the Long Term Side Effects of Metallosis?

It is likely that the recipients of a metal-on-metal hip implant have heard about the possible consequences from the metal shavings which can be released into the body when the metal cup and ball rub against one another during normal activities. Tiny ions of cobalt and chromium shear off when the two surfaces meet and those ions can lodge in the surrounding tissues or can end up in the bloodstream. As more and more metal hip implant patients are realizing the seriousness of metal toxicity, blood testing for elevated levels of metals is increasing. In many cases patients have been found to have levels of cobalt and chromium in their bloodstream which are as much as a hundred times normal levels. 

Although slightly elevated levels of these metals are fairly normal for patients with metal-on-metal hip implants, extreme elevations can be very dangerous—and anxiety-producing for the patient. DePuy released a report indicating that concentrations of the metals greater than 7 parts per billion are cause for concern. The Mayo Clinic has set somewhat different reference values, stating that blood serum concentrations of chromium greater than 1ng/mL suggests significant wear of the metal implant while serum concentrations greater than 5.0 ng/mL of cobalt can be considered toxic and also suggest significant wear of the prosthesis. Remember that 1 PPB (part per billion) equals 1.0 ng/mL.

Johnson & Johnson Hip Implant Settlement: Filing Deadlines are Approaching Fast

Many recipients of the ASR metal-on-metal hip implant are unaware of a crucial date which is fast approaching. The ASR was approved by the FDA in 2005 then labored under a flurry of adverse reports regarding early failure rates. Finally, on August 26, 2010, DePuy recalled the ASR, citing failure rates of around 12-13%--as opposed to their initial reports of 4-5% failure rates. What this means is that among the 26 states which operate under the two year statute of limitations, there is less than a month left to join in the multi-district lawsuits against DePuy. Of the more than 40,000 recipients of the ASR in the U.S. alone, only about 6,000 of those have joined in as plaintiffs in the DePuy suit. This means there are over 35,000 ASR recipients out there who have yet to come forward.

There may be several reasons for this including the fact that many of these people may be unaware of the recall. Others may be elderly recipients of the metal ASR and are simply chalking their negative health symptoms up to the aging process. It is believed, however that a large number of those who have not joined in the lawsuit have not done so because they are not yet experiencing problems, therefore believe they have no rights under the current lawsuit. It’s important that this group of people be aware that the actual failure rate of the ASR has been estimated at 50% at six years and 80% at eight years. Considering the ASR metal-on-metal implant has only been on the market since 2005 you can see that the likelihood of thousands more recipients having serious problems from the device is huge.

Statute of Limitations and the Likelihood of Reimbursements by Broadspire

Broadspire is one of the foremost third-party risk management administrators to large insurance companies and employers. Broadspire has been retained by DePuy to engage in damage control regarding the ASR hip implant claims.  It is likely that few people who have suffered medical harm because of a metal-on-metal hip implant truly understand the lengths such companies will go to in order to save their client as much money as possible. Broadspire is under orders by Johnson and Johnson and DePuy to downplay the public outcry regarding the ASR hip implant recall to the fullest extent possible. One of the avenues Broadspire will use for this specific purpose is to gain as much knowledge about patients as possible through the use of claimant data.

Will Benefits Be Discontinued?

If you or a loved one has suffered an adverse medical event which is directly related to a metal-on-metal hip implant then one look at Broadspire’s website should give you an idea of the true nature of this company and the depths they will go to in order to benefit their client.  Privileged medical records are being used for the benefit of Johnson and Johnson and DePuy via an entire panel of medical professionals at their beck and call. Many of those victims of the hip implant currently rely on the reimbursement benefits being offered through Broadspire which covers their co-pays and deductibles. The question on everyone’s minds now is whether those benefits will continue after the statute of limitations runs out in August, 2012.

Metal-on-Metal Hip Implants Tied to Metallosis?

Corrosion, serious tissue reactions and metallosis are all possible side effects for recipients of the metal-on-metal hip implant. The safety of these devices has come under serious question with many recipients requiring revision surgery to remove the harmful devices. The DePuy ASR was recalled in 2010 due to studies showing it corroded much more quickly than other types of implants, most notably those made of ceramic and plastic. Once corrosion occurs in the metal hip implant the tissues surrounding the implant can become inflamed or soft tissue masses, lesions and necrosis can occur. The femoral heads as well as the acetabular cup of the DePuy hip implants are constructed of cobalt and chromium. The past few years have seen serious concerns regarding the metal chromium and cobalt particles which shave off when the femoral head and acetabular cup rub against one another during any activity. Once the levels of corrosion reach the unsafe stage the implant will likely have to be removed during a revision surgery.

Journal of Anthroplasty Study

A recent study in the Anthroplasty Journal compared the levels of corrosion on the femoral heads of the metal hip implants with those constructed of metal-on-polyethylene which implements a synthetic liner between the metal cup and femoral head. This liner acts as a buffer between the two metal pieces meaning there is less chance of the small metal ions slivering off and causing metallosis or metal toxicity in the bloodstream. The metal ions in the bloodstream can lead to kidney and liver disease or certain types of cancer, while the metal shards which lodge in surrounding tissues can lead to serious inflammation, tumors and even bone loss.

U.S. Drug Watchdog Urges Pinnacle Hip Implant Recipients to Come Forward

Over 130,000 Americans received a DePuy Pinnacle metal-on-metal hip implant between the years of 2005 and 2010. Although its counterpart, the DePuy ASR XL hip replacement system was recalled in 2009, the Pinnacle, while employing the same construction methods and materials, has not been recalled. Because of the recall of the ASR, there is mounting concern that the Pinnacle may also expose recipients to the dangers of metallosis or metal toxicity. The U.S. Drug Watchdog has stated their goal of reaching each and every one of the recipients of the Pinnacle implant to ensure none who have suffered harm are left behind.

Although only about a thousand people have come forward to date, the U.S. Drug Watchdog believes those numbers will grow rapidly, reaching well over 100,000. When the victims are properly identified they will then be provided access to the most knowledgeable attorneys who possess a thorough background in the intricacies of the metal hip implant. The objective of the U.S. Drug Watchdog is to ensure every person who had their health harmed because of a metal-on-metal hip implant receives appropriate compensation for failure of the implant.

DePuy Litigation: Statute of Limitations Depuy Lawsuits

By Independent Staff Writer

In August of 2010 DePuy Orthopedics, Inc. recalled two of its most popular hip replacement systems—the ASR XL Acetabular and the ASR Hip Resurfacing System. The recall came on the heels of a study which indicated the five-year failure rate of these products was as high as one in every eight patients. Severe pain and metal toxicity in the blood have required many of those who received a DePuy hip replacement to have revision surgery to replace the defective implant. Although the DePuy Pinnacle system has not yet been recalled it utilizes the same metal-on-metal design as the ASR, and many of those who received the Pinnacle implant have experienced the same symptoms including loosening of the hip implant, unsafe chromium and cobalt levels in the blood and extreme pain.  

What is a Statute of Limitations?
All lawsuits filed in the United States have an expiration period known as the Statute of Limitations. After this time period has passed an injured party is prohibited from filing a recovery case. These statutes are meant to guard companies from being exposed to lawsuits for long periods of time as well as to ensure the suits are filed while evidence is preserved and memories are clear. Depending on the state you reside in the statute of limitations for product liability can range from two to six years.

DePuy’s “Offer”
Following DePuy’s recall of their hip implants the company stated that patients who met specific criteria might be able to have some of their medical costs covered. Before any type of reimbursement is issued, however, DePuy will review patient’s medical records to determine whether the patient is eligible for reimbursement. The problem with this is that DePuy states the patient’s medical records must confirm a revision surgery is definitively related to the ASR recall rather than another cause such as a “traumatic fall.” In other words, the company is likely to attempt to blame the failure of the hip implant on a pre-existing condition, an underlying disease, physician error or misuse, therefore providing DePuy with sensitive medical records could well mean you would receive no money at all for the defective product implanted in your body.

New Data From Britain About DePuy ASR Acetabular Hip Replacement Devices

By Independent Staff Writer 


Is Johnson & Johnson Telling the Truth About the Failure Rate?
Johnson & Johnson claimed the failure rate was 13% when it recalled the DePuy product in 2010, according to its press release. Johnson & Johnson started using the device in the United States in 2005 and based its failure rate on five years of research.  However, England has a hip registry dating back well before 2005.
This week a report by The British Orthopedic Association revealed the DePuy ASR XL hip replacement unit fails as often as 49% of the time. This is an astounding four times what Johnson & Johnson reported stated when it recalled the device last year.

Dr. David Beverland, an Irish orthopedic surgeon who does massive numbers of hip and knee replacements reported that he started implanting the ASR devices in his patients in September 2004 and stopped in May 2007. He declined to say why he stopped the implants, but reported that 32% of his ASR XL patients have been or will need a second hip replacement (revision) and 44% are symptomatic. Only about 22% of his ASR XL patients seem to have achieved a good result and three of his patients died after receiving the implant. This is a serious problem for the defense since Beverland has been a major consultant and product champion for DePuy.
Here are the real facts:

We've got several good reasons why you shouldn't do anything of the kind.

By Independent Staff Writer


After DePuy issued its recall notice, it sent a letter to the surgeons who had conducted hip replacement surgeries using the ASR XL Acetabular System. In part, the letter informed the surgeons that DePuy was offering to pay for their patients' hip revision surgery.
In exchange, the company wanted just one minor thing: the hip implant.
On the face of it, this doesn't seem like an out-of-line request. After all, DePuy was offering to replace the faulty hip implants and told the surgeons that it wanted to see the explants to figure out what was wrong with the design and make improvements in future models. Many patients may very well have thought that returning the hip implant to DePuy was actually returning the device to its proper owner.
Not so. DePuy has no right to your hip implant - emphasis here on your. You bought and paid for the hip implant when you first had a hip replacement surgery. It belongs to you.
The other problem, of course, is that handing over the explant is as bad as handing over the keys to your case.

Why Your Hip Implant is Valuable to Your Case
When archaeologists discover human bones buried thousands of years ago, they can discern amazing things about how those people lived, interacted, and died. Sometimes they can even determine the profession or position they held in society depending on the way the bones had been worn down over time.
Your hip implant tells a similar story. The way that it has deteriorated over time will reveal whether it is your behavior or DePuy's poor design that has caused the medical problems you and others have experienced as a direct result of the implant. DePuy would very much like to prove that your lifestyle since the surgery has caused the breakdown of your hip implant. Failing that, the company would like to prove that the way your doctor placed the implant has made it ineffective.
If DePuy holds the explant, it can attempt to imply that you caused your hip implant's failure. If you hold it, your legal representation can prove otherwise.

The Art of Misdirection
DePuy offered patients a free hip revision surgery as an enticement. For patients who are fearful that their hip implant is faulty and causing problems like metal sensitivity, metallosis, heavy metal poisoning, and bone deterioration, the offer of a no-cost revision is extremely appealing. Worried that the longer they retain the hip implant, the worse off they will be, those patients are likely to sign the consent forms presented to them without reviewing them properly. Even if they do review the forms, it's not likely the full ramifications will become clear until it's too late.
If DePuy lacked sufficient talent to properly design and engineer a functioning implant, they've made up for that shortcoming by perfecting the art of misdirection. Distracting patients with the offer of a free hip revision surgery, DePuy is making the removed hip explants disappear into thin air - or, at the very least, into the hands of their legal defense.

It's a clever con, and it is very easy to be taken in by it. Many patients have already signed away their own hip explants to DePuy in exchange for the free hip revision surgery, and have undermined their case by doing so. However, even if you have already signed the consent forms, there are ways to reverse the trick and bring the faulty hip implant out of the shadows and back into the light.

Bad Intentions
It is entirely possible that DePuy intends to use the explants to improve on their current model and produce a better ASR Acetabular System. However, the evidence thus far is not in favor of that story. Leaving aside the fact that DePuy never put the hip implant through clinical trials in the first place, in previous litigation on another implant case, the company's defense team used the explants to try to prove the plaintiff caused the problems himself.
In one particularly frightening story recounted to us by an attorney who referred a client to us, a hip explant was "lost" after a revision surgery. The hospital and surgeon's staff insisted that the explant was being held at the hospital after surgery. Another staff member said the explant had been thrown out along with other surgical waste, admitting later that a DePuy representative was present at the hospital on the day of the operation.

Becoming part of a mass action lawsuit over the DePuy hip implant gives you an edge that going solo can't afford.

By Independent Staff Writer

Many different law firms are suing DePuy Orthopaedics over the faulty ASR XL Acetabular System. In a personal, vulnerable situation like this hip implant case, it can be difficult to assess the situation and make the right legal decision for you. In this article, we'd like to break down the difference between mass action, class action, and solo cases so you can make a well-informed choice for yourself.

"One Riot, One Ranger"

When a single person with a single lawyer brings a case against one organization, our firm's Andrew Sullo likes to call it a "one riot, one ranger" case: one person was harmed, and one person needs to set it right.

Let's take a hypothetical. Company X has a trucking business. One of its drivers runs into a pedestrian and causes serious injury. The driver was clearly negligent and the pedestrian was clearly hurt. The damages amount to $1 million. If the lawyer presents a good case, it's likely that the case will be settled for the $1 million, and Company X won't bother spending much on its own legal defense.

Company X could, of course, spend $1 million to avoid paying the $1 million to the plaintiff, but this would take up time, company resources, and would likely land them some bad press. If the money will be spent anyway, it's in Company X's best interest to simply pay the plaintiff with it instead of using up those resources.

"One riot, one ranger" is a very effective way to settle a case with a single client who has a single complaint, because it simply isn't worth the legal fees to Company X to defend the case when it can be settled for its fair value. They would rather settle the case, reluctantly compensate the plaintiff for his injury, and move on.

So if "one riot, one ranger" cases are effective, why isn't that the best way to bring a case against DePuy for their faulty hip implant?

If a single person had received a single faulty hip from DePuy, it would be a great way to bring the case. Unfortunately, we're dealing with 93,000 people who received recalled hip implants, many of whom will now have medical consequences.

And in that situation, the math starts to work against the plaintiffs.

Bluffing Without a Hand

Going back to Company X for a moment, let's say that instead of the truck running into a single pedestrian, the truck ran into a plane full of people. 200 people are seriously injured. Each of those 200 people runs out and gets a lawyer. The cost of the injuries is far beyond our original case scenario - perhaps a few people have injuries totaling $1 million worth of compensation, but others will have lower or higher damages.

Instead of paying a one-time settlement of $1 million, Company X is now looking at paying several hundred million, because there are so many people to settle with.

Suddenly, shelling out a couple million in lawyer's fees to defend against the lawsuits is a much better deal for Company X.

Each individual lawyer (assuming they are working on a contingent fee basis) will have to put up his or her own money to fight the case. Company X can afford to put a lot more money into the case than the lawyers can because they are ultimately saving themselves from the even more expensive consequences of settlement.

One plaintiff might have a $10,000 case, and the plaintiff's lawyer might be willing to put in up to that amount of his own money to see justice served. But Company X can afford to put in millions - even if the case isn't actually worth that amount - just so they won't have to settle with the other 200 individual cases as well.

In a case where there are many people who have been harmed, it's a case of "divide and conquer." The more lawyers who are depending only on their own funds to bring a case against Company X, the more power and leverage Company X has. They know the lawyer can only afford to put in a certain low amount of money, so when the bargaining starts, the lawyer is bluffing with a bad hand. Company X knows it can outbid him. The lawyer knows Company X can outbid him. He's got nothing to bargain with.

Enter the mass action lawsuit.

Choosing a good lawyer isn't as difficult as you might imagine; it's just a matter of asking the right questions.

By Independent Staff Writer

With so many lawyers out there, how should you go about finding a good one? How can you tell a strong lawyer from a weak one? You need solid legal advice, and you want the right attorney. Do not, we repeat, DO NOT just open the phone book, close your eyes, and point to a name. Here are some guideposts to help you. 

A good lawyer is ethical.

You're probably laughing right now. Can the words "ethics" and "lawyer" exist in the same sentence? Actually, it is possible, and you should absolutely insist on it. But how can you tell if a lawyer is ethical? There are some pretty good indicators. 

What types of cases does he take?
Lawyers have a choice about which cases they take. Look at her winning cases as well as the losing ones. No lawyer wants to lose a case, but an ethical lawyer will often be willing to take a case because it is the right thing to do and fight to the very end.
Look at whether the lawyer actually tries the cases he takes in court or whether he just gathers cases for others. Ask the attorney when he last went to trial. Ask him how often his cases settle and how often his cases make it to a jury.

Be sure that the lawyer specializes in your type of case. You really don't want a tax attorney to represent you in your personal injury case. An ethical attorney will only take cases in her area of expertise.

What types of clients does he represent?
Does he represent big corporations or everyday people? Does he fight for the underdog? Does he hold wrongdoers accountable for their behavior? 

Is he honest?
Is she candid about the strengths and weaknesses of your case? A good lawyer will almost never tell her clients that the case is a "slam dunk." Those types of cases are extremely rare. Moreover, is he honest about his own strengths and weaknesses as an attorney? A good lawyer will tell you if he's particularly good in one area, but that he may ask his partner to help out in another area. He knows that two heads are better than one, and he can be honest about it. Is the lawyer truthful about his fees and costs? He should tell you what his services will cost, and there should not be any hidden fees. 

What is the lawyer's reputation in the community?
Is he known for his honesty, his pro bono work, his strong relationships in the legal and general community?
Google the lawyer's name. See what comes up. Look for newspaper articles, websites and blogs.
Make sure the attorney is in good standing with the state. Any sort of disciplinary action is a red flag.
Ask around the community. Does the lawyer have a good name around town?
Have any of your friends or acquaintances had experiences with him?
Check his references. 

A good lawyer values you as a person.

Does he look you in the eye when he's talking with you?
Are you treated as a person or as just some client? Does the lawyer remember personal information about you, including your spouse's or children's names?
Do you actually get to meet with him personally, or are you always sent to talk with a secretary? A good lawyer will make time for you and will return your phone calls quickly.
Does he show that he understands that you have a unique situation that is quite unlike anyone else's?
Has he shown that he respects your time and obligations, or does he talk on and on? Remember, a good lawyer will listen at least as much as he speaks. 

The surgeon recommended a DePuy hip implant to his patient thinking the device was fully tested by the FDA for safety. He was wrong.

By Taylor Lindstrom

A 30-year-old man needs a hip replacement. His surgeon recommends a DePuy ASR XL Acetabular system because its metal-on-metal design is more durable and allows for a more active life. Following the doctor's recommendations, the young man gets the DePuy hip implant. 

Then the hip implant fails. The young man is in extraordinary pain. His revision surgery reveals dead tissue and deteriorated bone, making it extremely difficult for his new implant to take hold. He takes a blood test that reveals extremely elevated levels of cobalt and chromium. He is now hypersensitive to metal and the surgeon warns him he may contract early-onset osteolysis.

 

The young man blames the surgeon for recommending the ASR XL Acetabular system in the first place? But the surgeon isn't the culprit in this scenario; he made the best recommendation he could for his patient. The surgeon is simply another victim of the real culprit: an FDA approval loophole called "substantial equivalence." 

A surgeon has countless medical devices to choose from. In the world of hip implants, he's looking at numerous options. The surgeon naturally wants to give his patients the best implant possible for their situation, so he chooses only FDA-approved devices that have been rigorously tested for safety.

Or so he thinks. 

Does an FDA Endorsement Guarantee Hip Implants' Safety?

The FDA has two processes for approving a new medical device: the premarket approval process,, and the premarket notification approval process. Similar as their names are, there is a world of difference between those two processes.

In the case of the patients who received an ASR XL Acetabular system, it may have been the difference between an improved quality of life with a working hip implant - or a drastically reduced quality of life with a faulty one.

The premarket notification process is also known as the 510(k) process, and it includes the loophole of "substantial equivalence." The 510(k) process allows a product to go directly to market without full clinical testing if the manufacturer claims the medical device is "substantially equivalent" to another device already on the market.

According to FDA documents, a substantially equivalent product is one that is created for the same intended use as the previously approved products; has the same design, materials and technology; and raises no new concerns about safety or effectiveness.

Substantial equivalence was designed to prevent the 2-3 year waiting period for testing. If one hip implant is so similar to another device that it could be expected to get the same test results, what was the point of testing it? 

One might argue "safety," but one would be naive to do so. Medical device companies pushed for the substantial equivalence loophole for an entirely different and far less altrustic reason: profits. Every year spent in testing is a year that hip implant isn't on the market earning money for the company. 

A Pyramid Built on Sand

 

For Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiary DePuy, the priority was on products, not patients. They claimed the ASR XL Acetabular System was "substantially equivalent" to no less than three other devices already on the market that had been tested for safety.

Every part of that statement would prove to be inaccurate.

Companies are allowed to claim that their new product is substantially equivalent to more than one other product. For example, since they have to show that they have the same materials and technology as a previously approved product, a company might show that they used the same materials as one product and the same technology as another.

For the ASR XL Acetabular system's 510(k) application, DePuy cited three different previously approved products saying that the ASR system was "substantially equivalent"-at least in part-to all three.

By this argument, you could get a safety approval from the FDA for a flying car with submarine without ever testing it - after all, it is "substantially equivalent" - at least in part - to an airplane, a car, and a submarine. What on earth would be the point in testing it again when the basic principles have already been proven safe?

The loophole gets even more absurd: companies are allowed to base their claims of "substantial equivalence" on products that were approved under the same 510(k) process.

One of the devices DuPuy used was approved with one device-that had been approved through another device-that had been approved through a third device-that was approved because it was substantially equivalent to a product grandfathered into the system prior to 1976.

Essentially, DePuy was claiming that their product was substantially equivalent to hip replacements manufactured before the FDA was ever in place

Not a single hip implant in this chain of FDA was ever subjected to clinical trials before it was allowed to go to market. Even if it had been, it seems laughable that a hip implant "substantially equivalent" to a series of pre-1976 implant could ever make it through the FDA. Has technology developed so slowly that the best implants on the market are based on designs from 40 years ago?

Put it into perspective: the ASR XL Acetabular system was marketed to younger people who needed a longer-lasting, more durable hip replacement. That means many of the recipients got a hip implant based on a design older than they were.

 

Only 10% of applications submitted under the 510(k) process are ever returned with a request for clinical trials. That means that 90% of the Class III hip implants available today were never tested in a clinical setting before being marketed to the public.

It's a wonder there haven't been more problems with these hip implants. How many of us would willingly submit to the medical procedures of 40 years ago? 

Testing the DePuy Hip Implant Takes a Backdoor to Profits

Had thorough clinical testing been done, it would have become clear long before the product went to market that the ASR XL Acetabular system had a revision rate of at least 15% and possibly more, not to mention a much higher rate of metallosis, metal poisoning, bone deterioration, and tissue damage.

Had DuPuy gone through the more rigorous PMA process with the FDA, it's likely the ASR system would never have been sold to the public. 

But then again, that was probably why DePuy didn't go through the more rigorous process. The 510(k) process and substantial equivalence meant that DePuy could start making profits off their hip implants much more quickly. Why risk losing the profits just because the device can't be proven safe?

While we acknowledge that companies need to make profits, companies who make medical devices such hip implants must be driven by consumer safety above all else. Willingly causing pain and suffering to thousands of people in exchange for a payoff makes DePuy "substantially equivalent" to a hired thug.

It's a harsh comparison - but one that holds up much better under scrutiny than the ASR XL Acetabular System.

The DePuy ASR XL Acetabular hip replacement system was FDA approved - which might be more cause for worry than relief.

By Lacy Boggs

Since 1976, all medical devices must be classified and approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) before they can be legally marketed to the public. It is the fond belief of many Americans that FDA approval is a ringing endorsement of a product's safety, a guarantee that the device has been tested and re-tested by professionals who are presumably trained to put the device through all kinds of rigor to triple-check its safety and effectiveness before allowing it anywhere near our fragile human bodies.

It is, as we say, a fond belief, but not an accurate one. It seems that many medical devices - including the recently recalled DePuy ASR XL Acetabular System - are given an FDA approval and subsequently placed inside people's bodies without ever going through a single test at the FDA. 

The FDA department responsible for the regulation and review of medical devices is the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH). CDRH divides medical devices into three classes: life-sustaining, life-supporting or implantable devices are designated as Class III.

Hip replacements, including the ASR XL system, qualify as a Class III device and are considered high risk to the patient's health. 

Class III devices can be approved by the FDA through one of two processes. The first, the premarket approval process (PMA) is more or less what we think of when we imagine our device being tested by the FDA: an extensive review including rigorous clinical trials that show it to be safe for use in humans. The PMA is quite detailed, lengthy, and expensive, usually costing the manufacturing company upwards of $250,000 and taking as much as two years to complete.

A quarter of a million is a large chunk of change - but thankfully for companies with a firm eye on their bottom line, there's always the second FDA approval process.

The premarket notification approval process, also known as the 510(k) approval process, is a sort of shortcut to approval that lowers the price point considerably - and also, conveniently, doesn't involve any pesky testing that might reveal a flaw in the product that would then have to be revamped and retested for another quarter-million. 

The 510(k) process basically pre-approves any product that is deemed "substantially equivalent" to another product already legally approved for sale. It costs less than $5,000, requires no clinical trials, and only takes an average of 3-6 months to complete. It's a good shortcut for products that are essentially identical to their forebears. After all, it hardly makes sense to waste the FDA's time when they could be helping get new, innovative, life-saving products to market. But what's to stop companies from claiming their products are "substantially equivalent" to other FDA-approved devices even if they're not remotely the same?

What, indeed 

The ASR XL Acetabular hip replacement system got its seal of approval from the FDA using the 510(k) process, claiming that its product was substantially equivalent to other hip replacement devices already on the market. The FDA official in charge of approving the device would have gone through a checklist that included the following questions (simplified; the actual document is fairly dense):

• Does the new product treat or solve the same problems as previously approved products?
• Does the new product have the same design, materials, and energy sources as previously approved products?
• Could any new characteristics or combinations of characteristics affect safety or effectiveness?

The first question is easy: there are dozens of hip replacement devices on the market, all designed to help people walk even after their bum hip throws them out of commission. The second question gives us a bit of a hiccup: the ASR XL Acetabular hip replacement system had two parts, a ball and socket

The ball was equivalent to an approved product; the socket was equivalent to an entirely different approved product; and the materials were equivalent to still a third approved product.

Thankfully for DePuy, the FDA had thoughtfully included a caveat that allowed for such an eventuality. Which brings us to question three: could any new characteristics affect safety?

In DePuy's 501(k) application, it declared that the "subject device does not raise any new issues of safety or effectiveness." A brave statement, though one wonders how the company confirmed such a diagnosis without going through any clinical trials. Perhaps if it had, the problem of metallosis would have become evident before the hips were implanted into approximately 93,000 people.   

With such prerequisites for FDA approval, it is perhaps not surprising that only 10% of 510(k) applications are referred back for supporting human, clinical or animal testing. 

Which is to say that 90% of claims require no clinical testing whatsoever before being sold to patients.

That's not to say that there is no testing at all. If a mechanical test is available, 510(k) approval process requires that the new product show that it yields similar results to a previously approved product. The DuPuy ASR hip replacement system took a few spins on a robot that went through simulated movements. In a legal suit brought against DePuy for a different hip implant last year, the mechanical test did not include the full range of motion of which a human being is capable.            Read more ....

How the ASR XL Acetabular System Became Substantially Equivalent

By Taylor Lindstrom

Home |Criminal Defense |Traffic Tickets |Legal Articles

A 30-year-old man needs a hip replacement. His surgeon recommends a DePuy ASR XL Acetabular system because its metal-on-metal design is more durable and allows for a more active life. Following the doctor's recommendations, the young man gets the DePuy hip implant.

Then the hip implant fails. The young man is in extraordinary pain. His revision surgery reveals dead tissue and deteriorated bone, making it extremely difficult for his new implant to take hold. He takes a blood test that reveals extremely elevated levels of cobalt and chromium. He is now hypersensitive to metal and the surgeon warns him he may contract early-onset osteolysis.

The young man blames the surgeon for recommending the ASR XL Acetabular system in the first place? But the surgeon isn't the culprit in this scenario; he made the best recommendation he could for his patient. The surgeon is simply another victim of the real culprit: an FDA approval loophole called "substantial equivalence."

A surgeon has countless medical devices to choose from. In the world of hip implants, he's looking at numerous options. The surgeon naturally wants to give his patients the best implant possible for their situation, so he chooses only FDA-approved devices that have been rigorously tested for safety.

Or so he thinks.

Does an FDA Endorsement Guarantee Hip Implants' Safety?

The FDA has two processes for approving a new medical device: the premarket approval process, and the premarket notification approval process. Similar as their names are, there is a world of difference between those two processes.

In the case of the patients who received an ASR XL Acetabular system, it may have been the difference between an improved quality of life with a working hip implant - and a drastically reduced quality of life with a faulty one.

The premarket notification process is also known as the 510(k) process, and it includes the loophole of “substantial equivalence." The 510(k) process allows a product to go directly to market without full clinical testing if the manufacturer claims the medical device is "substantially equivalent" to another device already on the market.

According to FDA documents, a substantially equivalent product is one that is created for the same intended use as the previously approved products; has the same design, materials and technology; and raises no new concerns about safety or effectiveness.

Substantial equivalence was designed to prevent the 2-3 year waiting period for testing. If one hip implant is so similar to another device that it could be expected to get the same test results, what was the point of testing it?

One might argue "safety," but one would be naive to do so. Medical device companies pushed for the substantial equivalence loophole for an entirely different and far less altrustic reason: profits. Every year spent in testing is a year that hip implant isn't on the market earning money for the company.

A Pyramid Built on Sand

For Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiary DePuy, the priority was on products, not patients. They claimed the ASR XL Acetabular System was "substantially equivalent" to no less than three other devices already on the market that had been tested for safety.

Every part of that statement would prove to be inaccurate.

Companies are allowed to claim that their new product is substantially equivalent to more than one other product. For example, since they have to show that they have the same materials and technology as a previously approved product, a company might show that they used the same materials as one product and the same technology as another.

For the ASR XL Acetabular system's 510(k) application, DePuy cited three different previously approved products saying that the ASR system was "substantially equivalent"-at least in part-to all three.

By this argument, you could get a safety approval from the FDA for a flying car with submarine without ever testing it - after all, it is "substantially equivalent" - at least in part - to an airplane, a car, and a submarine. What on earth would be the point in testing it again when the basic principles have already been proven safe?

The loophole gets even more absurd: companies are allowed to base their claims of "substantial equivalence" on products that were approved under the same 510(k) process.

One of the devices DuPuy used was approved with one device-that had been approved through another device-that had been approved through a third device-that was approved because it was substantially equivalent to a product grandfathered into the system prior to 1976.

Essentially, DePuy was claiming that their product was substantially equivalent to hip replacements manufactured before the FDA was ever in place.

Not a single hip implant in this chain of FDA was ever subjected to clinical trials before it was allowed to go to market. Even if it had been, it seems laughable that a hip implant "substantially equivalent" to a series of pre-1976 implant could ever make it through the FDA. Has technology developed so slowly that the best implants on the market are based on designs from 40 years ago?

Put it into perspective: the ASR XL Acetabular system was marketed to younger people who needed a longer-lasting, more durable hip replacement. That means many of the recipients got a hip implant based on a design older than they were.

Only 10% of applications submitted under the 510(k) process are ever returned with a request for clinical trials. That means that 90% of the Class III hip implants available today were never tested in a clinical setting before being marketed to the public.

It's a wonder there haven't been more problems with these hip implants. How many of us would willingly submit to the medical procedures of 40 years ago?

Testing the DePuy Hip Implant Takes a Backdoor to Profits

Had thorough clinical testing been done, it would have become clear long before the product went to market that the ASR XL Acetabular system had a revision rate of at least 15% and possibly more, not to mention a much higher rate of metallosis, metal poisoning, bone deterioration, and tissue damage.

Had DuPuy gone through the more rigorous PMA process with the FDA, its likely the ASR system would never have been sold to the public.

But then again, that was probably why DePuy didn't go through the more rigorous process. The 510(k) process and substantial equivalence meant that DePuy could start making profits off their hip implants much more quickly. Why risk losing the profits just because the device can't be proven safe?

While we acknowledge that companies need to make profits, companies who make medical devices such hip implants must be driven by consumer safety above all else. Willingly causing pain and suffering to thousands of people in exchange for a payoff makes DePuy "substantially equivalent" to a hired thug.

It's a harsh comparison - but one that holds up much better under scrutiny than the ASR XL Acetabular System.

If you're among those who received a DePuy hip implant, we'd like to help answer any questions you may have, both medical and legal. DePuy didn't care about your safety enough to compromise their profits; we do.