DePuy ASR Hip Replacement Products

January 14th, 2011

Pryers Solicitors now act for a large and growing group of patients who have suffered the failure of their DePuy ASR hip. Some received the joint in total hip replacement surgery and some in hip resurfacing.

Most of the cases will be brought as product liability claims against the manufacturer, DePuy, but some may become clinical negligence claims, if the evidence shows that the joint was fitted incorrectly or was not suitable for the patient.

DePuy has already withdrawn the joint from the market and guidance has been issued by DePuy and also by the British Hip Society as to what investigations should be carried out to determine whether a particular patient’s joint has failed or not.

The problem is thought to be caused by the socket’s subhemispheric shape, that is to say that it does not cover as much of the head of the joint as other products do. This means that there is less surface area and therefore higher pressure between the two parts of the joint. Also, there is a groove around the inside rim of the socket, which further reduces the surface area and increases the pressure. The increased pressure forces the body’s natural lubricating fluid out of the joint causing the metal to rub against metal, which soon wears away.

As the joint surface wears, small metal particles break away from the surface of the socket, becoming imbedded in muscles and ligaments around the joint. This causes inflammation, pain and the joint rapidly fails, causing a wide range of other symptoms. The metal particles get into the patient’s blood stream, but it is not yet known what long-term effect this might have.

If the joint has failed, revision surgery will be required, which tends to be more difficult and carries higher risks of complications. Often, a revised hip will not work as well or last as long as a first hip replacement or resurfacing, meaning that the effects of the joint failure will often be life-long.

Studies published so far have shown that the failure rate of the ASR is much higher than that of other similar products and research to be published very shortly will show that the ASR fails more than 10 times faster than the market-leading hip resurfacing product.

Pryers have commissioned expert evidence from engineers and surgeons and are working with other law firms in England, Ireland and the USA towards proving that the ASR hip is defective and obtaining fair compensation for patients who have been injured.

If you have undergone hip replacement or hip resurfacing and have symptoms of joint failure, and believe you might have had an ASR joint, please contact Richard Starkie or Richard Greensit of Pryers Solicitors.

Richard.starkie@pryers-solicitors.co.uk

Richard.greensit@pryers-solicitors.co.uk

Telephone 0800 316 0166

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Technorati
  • Live
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace

DePuy ASR Hip Replacement Implants Recall

November 9th, 2010


Pryers Solicitors have been instructed by a number of patients to bring claims for compensation in relation to the failure of De Puy ASR hip implants, which have been recalled by the manufacturer.

Since the product was launched in 2003, over 10,000 people in the UK have been fitted with a De Puy ASR hip implant, either during hip replacement or hip resurfacing.

Towards the end of 2009, experts in Australia became concerned that a large number of ASR hips were failing prematurely, often requiring further surgery.  Earlier this year, the UK Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Authority (MHRA) issued a notice about the ASR hip, saying that there may be a problem.  They began their own investigations.  In September 2010, the manufacturer, De Puy, decided that the products should no longer be used; that unused stock should be returned to the manufacturer; and patients who had received an ASR device should be checked by their surgeons and, if they showed symptoms of failure of the device, revision surgery should be considered.

While the revision rate is still relatively low, at about 12 or 13% within five years, this is more than twice the rate that would be expected from other hip products.  It is therefore expected that a very large number of patients will have hip pain and will require additional surgery due to the defect in the particular hip used.   In many cases, such patients will be entitled to compensation from De Puy.

Pryers represent a number of people, from all over the UK, who have had problems with the De Puy ASR hip and who have required further surgery for revision, or are expected to require revision in the future.  Claims for compensation will be brought against the manufacturer under the Consumer Protection Act, which requires manufacturers to pay compensation for injuries and financial losses caused by defective products.  Most cases will be conducted on a “no win no fee” basis.

If you have been fitted with a De Puy ASR prosthesis, whether as a replacement or resurfacing,  and are having hip pain or other hip symptoms, please contact Richard Greensit, a specialist medical solicitor at Pryers.

Richard can be contacted on 01904 556600 or at richard.starkie@pryers-solicitors.co.uk.

Update: Please see related post: DePuy ASR Hip Replacement Products

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Technorati
  • Live
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace

Clinical negligence claim after hip operation

April 3rd, 2010

Surgery can lead to clinical negligence claimsPryers solicitors in York recently won a settlement of £100,000 for a clinical negligence claim. A man suffered complications following a hip resurfacing operation that was carried out negligently. The hip dislocated, requiring a total hip replacement. Unfortunately, the replacement was also carried out negligently, leaving him with a leg length discrepancy that caused him to develop a fixed deformity of the knee. Following further problems with pain and dislocation, he subsequently required a further revision operation, carried out by a different surgeon. This has left him with improved pain and function.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Technorati
  • Live
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace