U.S. District Judge Expects DePuy MDL to Move Forward

A recent meeting between the Judge chosen to oversee the multi-district litigation in the DePuy Pinnacle hip implant case included attorneys from both sides. The goal of the meeting was to determine the most practical manner of handling the more than 1,000 current DePuy lawsuits. U.S. District Judge Ed Kinkeade—judge for the northern district of Texas—will use the MDL in the interest of expediting and coordinating these consolidated pre-trial proceedings. Unlike many MDL cases, the DePuy case appears to be moving forward with case management procedures expected in the next six weeks to two months.

The initial MDL trials in the DePuy Pinnacle cases are bellwether trials with a purpose of choosing representative cases from those filed to determine how juries will likely react to evidence which is common to all the cases. During a bellwether trial the judge and attorneys are able to gain knowledge which will be helpful in negotiating future DePuy lawsuits. The process dictates that representative attorneys will be chosen to try the DePuy bellwether trials; the knowledge gained from these trials will be extremely helpful in planning strategies and setting precedence for future Pinnacle cases. All attorneys involved in litigating the DePuy Pinnacle metal-on-metal hip implants will be watching the bellwether cases closely as well as the entire MDL.

Transvaginal Mesh: A Brief History of the Problematic Implant

By Independent Staff Writer


While the past three years have brought an influx of complications and problems related to the transvaginal mesh implant, the device has actually been in use for over half a century. Surgical mesh made of metallic or polymer screens was developed for use in abdominal hernia surgeries in the 1950’s, however gynecologists soon saw the advantages of using the mesh in the surgical repair of stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse. These problems are relatively common among women who have had children, undergone a hysterectomy or are post-menopausal. During such events, the muscles and ligaments which surround the pelvic organs can weaken, allowing those organs to slip out of their natural place, or prolapse.

FDA Approves Surgical Mesh for Abdominal Surgeries
Surgical mesh was originally approved for abdominal applications; since pelvic organ prolapse surgeries were performed abdominally in the 70’s, the mesh appeared to be a good solution for POP surgeries as well. Prior to the development of mesh, hernia repair was performed using suture techniques which garnered recurrence rates from 24-54%. Once the mesh began to be widely used to repair hernias, the recurrence rates dropped to 10-20%, however placement and fixation of the mesh was crucial for a positive outcome. In the late 1980’s surgeons began positioning the mesh with an overlap of 5 cm in all directions around the hernia defect, and the recurrence rates dropped as low as 3.5%.

Transvaginal Use of Mesh
Following several decades of success in using the mesh implants, the 1990’s brought such great advances in surgical techniques as well as in the mesh technology itself that gynecologists began using the mesh in both SUI and POP transvaginal surgical procedures. At this time there was still no “official” surgical mesh product available for these procedures, therefore the surgeons simply cut the mesh themselves whenever they used the abdominal mesh in vaginal applications. Manufacturers of the mesh saw an opportunity, and began producing kits which included both the mesh as well as tools which supported the surgical delivery and insertion.

FDA Approval for Transvaginal Use
Actual FDA approval of the mesh for transvaginal surgeries did not take place until a mesh developed by Boston Scientific was approved in 1996 for use in stress urinary incontinence surgeries. Unfortunately, the year following that approval saw problems with this particular mesh product with over 120 patients reporting serious side effects. Even though Boston Scientific’s ProteGen was voluntarily pulled from the market in 1999, the manner in which FDA approval was granted allowed subsequent products to be approved using the ProteGen as a predicate device.  Even though surgeons had been using mesh in pelvic organ prolapse surgeries for many years, it was finally granted FDA approval for this particular application in 2002.

Unexpected Problems Arise
Although for the most part the mesh products worked well in the areas of the abdomen which were limited in flex, the pelvis has a much different physiology. Pelvic regions such as the vagina tend to be highly flexible and much more delicate than the abdomen, and the stiff, inelastic mesh did not work as well with the fragile tissues. In many cases the mesh would shrink and become rigid, pulling at the delicate surrounding areas and even eroding through the tissue walls.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Letter to Hip Makers Mean

What Does the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Letter to Hip Makers Mean?

Home |Personal Injury |DePuy Hip Recall |Traffic Tickets |Family Law |Criminal Defense |Get Informed

The U.S. FDA ordered 21 manufacturers to collect information from patients.

The U.S. FDA ordered 21 manufacturers to collect information from patients in a recent letter to hip manufacturers. Click here for report. The three-page letter demands blood tests and other studies within thirty days. Here is a summary of the information and questions the FDA is requiring from manufacturers:

• The harmful events observed in patients with Metal-on-Metal (MoM) total hip replacement (THR) systems.
• The levels of serum and chromium in patients prior to THR.
• The patient population's average levels of chromium and serum in the blood for a minimum of eight years after the implant (patient population is the demographics and other particulars of a particular population).
• Do the average levels of chromium and serum in the blood increase during the first eight years (or the length of time on the market)?
• Reasons for revision (alteration of a medical device) and patient population's average levels of chromium and serum in the blood at the time of the revision.
• The number of patients with pain and biological and psychological symptoms associated with the THR.
• The quantity of harmful reaction of body tissues in patients who did not have a revision.
• How differences in revisions vary over time after the initial implant?
• What demographics have higher metal ion concentrations in their blood?
• What demographics have higher risks of needing revisions?
• What causes the THRs to fail?