Yourlawyer.com (Zimmer Durom Cup News) http://www.yourlawyer.com/topics/overview/durom_cup Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:15:25 -0800 pixel-app en Orthopedic Docs Withheld Info About Industry Pay When Presenting Research http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/17094 Thu, 08 Oct 2009 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/17094 A new study has found that doctors who presented research  last year at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons weren't always as forthcoming as they should  have been about their financial relationships with the manufacturers of artificial joints.  The study appears this week in The New England Journal of Medicine.

The financial relationships between  the medical industry and doctors have caused controversy in recent years.  In 2007, a U.S. attorney in New Jersey filed criminal complaints alleging that some of the largest artificial-joint makers conspired to violate a federal anti-kickback statute by making payments to surgeons in an attempt to keep their business.  As we reported the time, four of the companies, Biomet Inc., DePuy Orthopaedics, Smith & Nephew, and Zimmer Holdings Inc. – paid a total of $310 million, without admitting wrongdoing. A fifth manufacturer, Stryker Corp., cooperated with the probe and was not charged.

According to The Wall Street Journal, the New England Journal of Medicine study measured the accuracy of disclosures by orthopedic surgeons who presented research at  the 2008 meeting.  The authors of the study compared the doctors' disclosures against a similar list published by the five firms involved in the 2007 settlement. They found that the orthopedists did not disclose more than 20% of the payments they received from the artificial joint manufacturers when they were presenting research involving a the firms' products.  

According to the article, of 344 payments disclosed by the companies, only 245 were disclosed by the recipients  The study also found that only 165 of 208 payments "directly related" to the doctor's presentation were disclosed. 

Critics of industry payments to doctors have long held that such relationships create conflicts-of-interest, and could unduly influence everything from research findings to prescribing practices.  According to The Wall Street Journal, several states, including Massachusetts and Vermont, have enacted laws requiring medical companies to disclose the payments they make to doctors.  On the federal level, the Physician Payment Sunshine Act would require similar disclosure.  The legislation is currently part of the health reform being considered in the U.S. Senate, the Journal said.

]]> Kickback Charges Against Orthopedic Device Makers Dropped http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/16331 Tue, 31 Mar 2009 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/16331 Zimmer Holdings Inc., Johnson & Johnson unit DePuy, Smith & Nephew PLC and Biomet Inc. had all been accused of violating federal anti-kick back laws.

According to Bloomberg News, the four companies  supply 95 percent of hips and knees used annually in 700,000 replacement surgeries in the U.S.  Prosecutors had accused the four firms of handing out excessive consulting agreements, lavish trips and other perks to reward surgeons who used their products.  Investigators said physicians performed little or no consulting work, other than to exclusively use the products of whatever company was paying them, and also failed to disclose the relationships with the hospitals where they performed surgery, or to their patients.

In 2007, the government agreed to defer prosecution if  the firms paid more than $310 million and made reforms. Under the deferred prosecution agreements, Zimmer paid $169.5 million; Johnson & Johnson,  $84.7 million; Smith & Nephew, $28.9 million; and Biomet, $26.9 million, Bloomberg said.  

"We are confident that the industry, which had been engaged in illegal kickback practices to secure market share, has made significant changes in their practices to strengthen compliance programs, increase compliance staffs and enhance internal compliance policies and procedures," said acting U.S. Attorney Ralph J. Marra Jr. in a statement Monday. "We expect they will continue these measures beyond the expiration of the agreements and commit to a continued culture of openness, accountability and compliance."

The Department of Justice statement said consulting payments to surgeons by the companies declined to $105 million in 2008 from $272 million in 2007, while the total number of physicians receiving payments from the companies declined to 628 in 2008 from 1,693 in 2007.

According to the New Jersey Star-Ledger, all four companies that entered into civil settlements remain subject to the terms of separate five-year Corporate Integrity Agreements entered into with the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services until September 2012.

A fifth company, Stryker Orthopedics Inc., voluntarily cooperated with the U.S. Attorney's office and executed a non-prosecution agreement, the Star-Ledger said.  It also pledged to put reforms in place and had been operating as well under a monitor's supervision that also ended yesterday.

]]> Women Having Problems with Hip Device http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/15489 Tue, 11 Nov 2008 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/15489 hip implant device makers and some American doctors have aggressively promoted hip resurfacing, since it became available in the U.S. in 2006, several years after it went into use overseas.

Hip resurfacing is targeted to physically active, middle-age patients, who are expected to outlive the normal 15-to-20-year life span of a full replacement joint.  The procedure preserves more of a patient’s own thigh bone than traditional replacement; however, but, studies are emerging in countries where resurfacing has been used longer than in the U.S., such as Sweden and Australia, that indicate a higher failure rate for women over men who undergo the resurfacing procedure.  Also, a British study revealed that those women are likelier to require a second corrective operation soon after the first as compared with women who underwent conventional full replacement hip surgery.

Researchers at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago found hip resurfacing complications were more frequent in women of all ages as well as men over the age of 55.  “This procedure is not ideal for everyone,” said Dr. Craig J. Della Valle, who led that study.  Meanwhile, doctors have long known that resurfacing retains more of a patient’s thigh bone, but that bone must remain strong for years, which is why the procedure is not advised for patients in their 60s.  The drawback is particularly significant for younger women because of menopausal bone weakening.

The Rush findings were based on a review of short-term outcomes for the first group of patients in the U.S. to receive a resurfacing device known as the Birmingham hip resurfacing system made by Smith & Nephew.  The study found of 32 of the first 537 hip resurfacing patients to receive the device after its approval in 2006, about six percent, suffered serious complications in the first year; 14 required corrective surgery. The most frequent cause involved femur fracture, which occurred in four of the 160 female patients reviewed.  All four were between the ages of 42 and 59.

A study released in September by the Royal College of Surgeons of England found 3.7 percent of the 2,360 women who underwent resurfacing there required a second surgery to repair the same hip within three years as compared to 1.6 percent or less for women receiving traditional replacements.  Dr. Della Valle at Rush said, “We have to be careful both on the patient side and the doctor side about adopting new technologies.”  Australia, Sweden, and England operate databases, known as registries, which regularly track the outcomes of orthopedic procedures and are publicly available. The U.S. does not have such a national tracking system.

Some U.S. orthopedic specialists refuse to perform resurfacing on any patient, citing no long-term data on durability.  Also, the rate of problems seen in short-term studies typically increases over time.  With traditional replacement hips, “based on data, I know what the results will be in 10 to 20 years,” said Dr. Thomas P. Sculco of the Hospital for Special Surgery, in Manhattan, who performs only traditional replacements. “I can’t give you 10-to-20-year data for hip resurfacing.”  Also, some doctors feel American surgeons are eager to profit on patient demand and are performing resurfacings after only minimal training.  When a resurfacing fails, the patient must undergo a full hip replacement, the very procedure resurfacing is meant to defer.

]]> Payments to Joint Implant Doctors Continue http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/15415 Thu, 30 Oct 2008 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/15415 joint replacement makers.  Although some physicians may not receive funding for using a specific maker’s device, some could receive kickbacks as large as a million dollars, despite that a recent federal anti-kickback case targeted such questionable payments.

Beginning in September 2007, a criminal investigation put a temporary halt on the paychecks of several thousand doctors who were also consulting for joint replacement device makers.  In a settlement, in which they admitted no wrongdoing, the industry's “major players” paid $311 million and agreed to federal monitoring.  The high-profile prosecution did not sever the financial ties between doctors and medical-supply companies and payouts continue.  Some experts fear that between buying out old contracts and writing new contracts under stricter compliance standards, amounts could increase; critics expect patients will face more problems because there is no way in which patients can determine how back-door financing is affecting medical care and choices.  Of deepest concern?  Doctors using a specific device or procedure for the money they will make, not for the benefits of one device or procedure over another and not for what is in the patient’s best interest.

Such lucrative “side deals” cannot possibly occur with no conflict of interest and according to Rosamond Rhodes, ethicist at the Mt. Sinai School of Medicine in New York, these practices create the potential to distort the judgment of the most well-intentioned doctors.  “It's just human nature," she said. "The money moves you."

 Worse, while money is given to those surgeons who assist in developing new products, industry is augmenting their programs for training and education, which involves flying in doctors nationwide and paying them to teach each other. That's a glaring conflict, in the view of Dr. Brian Hurley, president of the American Medical Student Association, who believes medical professionals should pay training expenses out of their own pockets.  "It's like going to a car salesman to learn about cars. The point is always, 'Use more of our product,'" he said. "Patients need to know they can trust that when a physician recommends something for them that it's in their interest, as opposed to the financial interest of the physicians themselves."


Between 2002- 2006, Zimmer Holdings Inc. and three of its rivals paid over $800 million to 6,500 doctors, hospitals, and medical associations. In 2007, 48 doctor-consultants received $1 million or more each.  Also, spine and heart devices makers have been accused of paying specialists with undeserved patent royalties and strip-club visits.  Meanwhile, Zimmer owes nearly $100 million in back pay to doctor-consultants, and will spend millions to buy out old royalty contracts and broker new deals.  Device makers paid a "large number of doctors" to increase sales and guarantee loyalty to particular implant brands, according to a spokesman for U.S. Attorney Christopher Christie of New Jersey, who brought the case.  Investigators found money and perks, such as luxury trips, were given to surgeons who did little or no work.  Prosecutors have said their investigation is ongoing and criminal charges against surgeons who solicited kickbacks are expected shortly.

]]> Lifespan and Success of Artificial Hip, Knee Implants Unpredictable http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/15269 Tue, 07 Oct 2008 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/15269
Knee and hip replacement surgery has become wildly popular.  According to the Associated Press, Americans undergo 478,000 knee replacements and 234,000 hip replacements every year.  But by 2030, hip replacements are expected to double, and knee replacements are expected to reach a whopping 3.4 million per year.  

Such surgeries are popular because, when successful, they can relieve patients of their debilitating pain, and allow them to walk normally again.  But joint implants have a finite lifespan, and will eventually need to be replaced.   Often substandard implants - as illustrated by this year's recalls of Stryker Hip Implants and Zimmer Durom Cup Hip Implants - result in the need for early revision.  But even quality implants won't last forever.

The first study, conducted by British researchers, found that one in 75 people who undergo hip or knee replacement surgery must undergo surgical revision within three years.  Even with the best of care, such replacement surgery is not always avoidable.

The one-in-75 replacement figure cited by the British researchers is actually pretty good, but the study found that the number of revisions gets higher, depending on several factors.  For example, hip resurfacing, a popular procedure, where rather than cutting away damaged bone, damaged hip ball and socket is covered with smooth metal, required revision at a higher rate than the traditional operation.  According to the report, 2.6 percent of resurfacing patients got a redo in three years compared with just under 1 percent who got a cemented new hip.

Patients with a partial knee replacement called the unicondylar knee needed more revisions than those who undergo a more traditional procedure.  The rate of a revision with that procedure was about 2.8 percent.

A second study, conducted by researchers at Massachusetts' Lahey Clinic found that there is no evidence available right now to enable doctors to advise patients on what activities might be safest for their new joint.  While most doctors will tell their patients that low-impact activities, such as walking and jogging are fine, there is no agreement on more strenuous sports.  There is also no evidence that hip resurfacing - typically offered to younger patients - will enable a return to more strenuous activities than traditional hip replacement.

"People do have very high expectations. They're not always getting those results," Thomas Barber of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, told the Associated Press.   "If you didn't play tennis before you got the operation, you're probably not going to play tennis afterwards."

]]> Study: Newer Joint Replacements Require More Revisions http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/15071 Wed, 03 Sep 2008 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/15071 It seems that newer medical techniques that are used in hip and knee replacements require revisions at a greater rate that older, established methods.  British researchers report that one in about 75 people required repeat hip and knee replacements in the three years following the original procedure.  The study was published in the journal PLoS Medicine.

The revision rates were even higher for patients who had new surgical techniques called hip resurfacing and unicondylar knee replacements.  Researchers said that these findings are raising concerns about the procedures.  "On the basis of our data, consideration should be given to using hip resurfacing only in male patients and unicondylar knee replacement in elderly patients," Jan van der Meulen of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and colleagues wrote.

The research involved an analysis of about 170,000 procedures that took place between 2003 and 2006.  Nearly half of all of these surgeries were performed in England during this time frame and experienced an overall revision rate of 1.4 percent, which is about one in 75 people.  Meanwhile, hip resurfacing, which is a newer technique in which doctors replace just the surface of the femur instead of the entire joint, saw a revision rate of 2.6 percent, the study found.  Also, unicondylar knee replacement—which is a procedure in which the surgeon only replaces one side of the knee joint—saw a revision rate of 2.8 percent, van der Meulen said.

The results match findings from other countries that also reflected higher revision rates for the new procedures, according to van der Meulen.  The new surgeries offer benefits because recovery time can be shorter because only a part of the joint is replaced, van der Meulen added.  "That is an observation that is seen around the world," he said. "Our registry is the largest in the world, which allows us to look at the most recent results.

Hip and knee replacements are among the most frequently performed surgeries, and medical device makers like Britain's Smith & Nephew and U.S.-based Stryker Corp have looked to new techniques given the increasing aging population.  van der Meulen noted that the researchers did not review or product types.

Earlier last month, we reported that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was in the early stages of developing a program to create a national surveillance registry for orthopedic device implants, enabling the FDA to look into independent public and private registries from which claim information would be fed into a central agency-regulated network.

According to an FDA spokesman, orthopedic device manufacturers would benefit from the program because it would “offer more timely, comprehensive assessment of the ‘real world’ experience of their devices and an alternative means to conduct mandated post-approval studies.”  Advocates argue that such a system would quickly alert doctors and federal regulators to devices with high failure rates, possibly sparing tens of thousands of patients from severe, painful injuries.  One such examples is with the hundreds of patients who received the Zimmer Durom Cup hip implants in the U.S. and  experienced serious adverse reactions.

]]> Lawsuit Alleges Medical Device Makers Paid Illegal Kickbacks to Doctors http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/14939 Wed, 13 Aug 2008 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/14939
According to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the lawsuit names Zimmer Inc. and Zimmer Holdings Inc.; DuPuy Orthopedics; and Biomet Inc., all of Warsaw, Ind.; Smith and Nephew Inc. of Memphis, Tenn.; Stryker Orthopedics of Mahweh, N.J.; and Stryker Inc., of Kalamazoo, Mich. as defendants.  The lawsuit also names dozens of local doctors as recipients of illegal payments.

Allegations of kickbacks by medical device makers are nothing new.  A New Jersey based federal probe completed last year found  that the  manufacturers named in the Intermedics-McCullough suit made lucrative payments to U.S. physicians  between 2002 and 2006 as a way to encourage doctors to favor their products. Stryker Orthopedics cooperated with prosecutors and escaped a fine, but agreed to federal monitoring for 18 months. The other companies, Zimmer Holdings Inc., Depuy Orthopaedics Inc., Biomet Inc. and Smith & Nephew Inc. agreed to a $311 million settlement with the Justice Department and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Since the settlements were reached, some members of Congress have pushed for laws that would require better disclosure of payments made to doctors. The Physician Payments Sunshine Act, for example, would require companies to disclose all gifts, fees or other compensation of more than $500 a year.

According to the Post-Gazette, Intermedics-McCullough sold replacement hip joints, knees, shoulder implants and other orthopedic and surgical products to local hospitals and orthopedic surgeons.  The Intermedics-McCullough lawsuit claims that from 1988 to 2007, the defendants "paid illegal kickbacks and provided numerous forms of illegal payments" to doctors and hospitals, and that Intermedic's sales began to drop after 1996 as a result of those practices.

Among the alleged illegal payments listed in the lawsuit  was one in excess of $8 million from Zimmer to Dr. Harry Rubash, formerly of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and now chief of orthopedic surgery at Massachusetts General Hospital.  In total, the lawsuit lists more than 200 payments, ranging from a few hundred dollars, to the $8,073,997 paid to Dr. Rubash.

]]> Zimmer Durom Cup Problems Highlight Need for Joint Registry http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/14839 Tue, 29 Jul 2008 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/14839 Hundreds of patients receiving Zimmer Durom Cup hip implants in the U.S. have been experiencing serious problems since the device was introduced in 2006.  But it wasn't until this past April, when a prominent surgeon went public with his concerns about the Durom Cup, that physicians learned of the widespread nature of the complaints.  Now, patient advocates are calling for the creation of a national database, called a joint registry, that tracks how patients with artificial hips and knees are doing.  Such a system, they argue, would quickly alert doctors and federal regulators to devices that have a high failure rate, possibly sparing tens of thousands of patients from severe, painful injuries.

The Durom Cup has been implanted in more than 12,000 U.S. patients since its introduction.  The Durom Cup was designed  for use in young, active patients who are likely to outlive a conventional hip prosthesis.  But last year, Dr. Lawrence Dorr, a  highly experienced orthopedist and Zimmer consultant, realized something was very wrong with the Durom Cup. 

Within months of receiving the component, many of Dr. Dorr's patients were back in his office, suffering from crippling pain.  X-rays of patients who received defective Durom Cups showed that the socket was separating from bone, rather than fusing with it. For patients, who had been told their new hips might last 15 to 20 years, the defect meant they would have to undergo an additional excruciating surgery to have their implant replaced.

Dr. Dorr took his concerns to Zimmer in early 2008, but he was ignored.  The company actually tried to blame Dr. Dorr's surgical technique for his patients problems - despite the fact that he has decades of experience doing hip implants.  In frustration, Dr. Dorr took his concerns to the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons, and found that many other surgeons had similar experiences with the Durom cup.  Finally, Zimmer bowed to the pressure created by Dr. Dorr and began an investigation.

Zimmer's investigation revealed that at some clinics, the Durom Cup failure rate was higher than 5 percent.  Finally, in July 2008, Zimmer suspended sales of the defective component.

Critics argue that it never should have taken so long for the Durom Cup's problems to become apparent.   And in many countries it would not have.  Those countries, including Australia, Britain, Norway and Sweden, use joint registry databases to track the performance of artificial joint components.  If the U.S. had such a database, Zimmer might have been forced to take the Durom Cup off the market long ago.

According to The New York Times, The Food and Drug Administration is charged with monitoring devices like artificial joints. But that system is often overwhelmed by the vast number of products it monitors and because doctors often do not report problems. Medicare, which pays for about half the hip and knee implants in this country, rebuffed a proposal two years ago from a medical group to support a joint database. It said it was not the agency’s job to gather such data — despite the considerable savings in taxpayer dollars that might come from reducing the number of do-over surgeries.

There are many reasons given for the failure of the U.S. to create a joint implant registry, ranging from the fragmentation and expanse of the healthcare system to the expense involved in such an effort.  However, some critics believe a more sinister force is at work - specifically the financial arrangements between implant makers and many orthopedic surgeons.  In any registry system, it would be up to physicians to report device problems. Some physicians might be reluctant to report problems with a device if they are receiving compensation from its manufacturer.

If such attitudes are blocking the creation of a joint implant registry, it would not be the first time surgeons were influenced by the payments they receive from implant makers.  Last year, several major  manufacturers, including Zimmer and Smith & Nephew, agreed to pay $310 million to settle civil charges and resolve a Department of Justice investigation into whether the firms paid illegal inducements to get some doctors to use their products.

]]> Durom Cup Hip Device Sales Halted Over Questionable Design http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/14819 Thu, 24 Jul 2008 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/14819 Durom cup has been implanted in over 12,000 patients since it was first sold in the United States in 2006.

Doctors have been voicing complaints in recent months that the Zimmer devices—a hip socket known as the Durom cup—was failing in their patients.  In those cases, the patients were required to undergo replacement surgery.  Zimmer said its investigation determined that the Durom cup was not defective and that even some experienced surgeons found it difficult to implant the device.  Zimmer said it expected to resume sales once it initiated specialized training for doctors.

Zimmer said it expected general need for early replacement of the device in patients to be low; however, Zimmer data and interviews with doctors suggest that hundreds of patients might need such procedures going forward.

Zimmer said the sales halt would cut $20 to $30 million from its sales estimates and that its expected earnings for the year would be $4.05- $4.10 a share, down from its earlier forecast of $4.20-$4.25 a share.  Bruce Nudell, an analyst at UBS who covers medical devices, said that Zimmer had not issued any warnings that sales would be halted.  “They had given hints that there would not be a recall but this came as a surprise,” Mr. Nudell said.

Problems with the Durom cup became known in April when a Los Angeles surgeon, Dr. Lawrence Dorr, publicly warned other orthopedists about cup failures he was hearing about from his patients.  At that time, Zimmer said it would initiate an investigation but that it saw no reason to take other action, such as halting sales. Zimmer cited European data that indicated that the Durom cup was doing well there; however, the version of the Durom cup used outside the US is a bit different from the one used in the US.  Additionally, while US doctors use the Durom cup in traditional hip replacement surgeries, surgeons in other countries use the device in a relatively new kind of hip surgery known as resurfacing, which involves different surgical techniques.

Zimmer, which announced the sales suspension late Tuesday, said its investigation found that using the cup required a higher degree of precision.  Dr. Dorr, who said he had stopped using the device last year, said he did not plan to start reusing it.  “It is a bad design,” he said.  Mr. Nudell, the analyst, said other doctors were happy with the cup, but he expected Zimmer might see a 50 percent drop in the product’s use when sales resumed.

As a result of halting sales, Zimmer said that it was also suspending United States premarketing trials of its system for resurfacing, the surgical process that is used in Europe with the Durom cup. That decision will put Zimmer further behind competitors that already have such products on the American market.

]]> Durom Hip Lawyer Zimmer Problems Durom Cup Implant Attorney Lawsuit http://www.yourlawyer.com/topics/overview/durom_cup Thu, 24 Jul 2008 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/topics/overview/durom_cup Zimmer Durom Cup Hip Implant Injury Lawyers

Keywords: Durom Hip Implant Lawyer Problems Attorney Failure Lawsuit

The lawyers and attorneys at our firm are offering free case evaluations to individuals injured by defective ZImmer Durom Cup hip implant components.  In July 2008, Zimmer Holdings announced it was suspending sales of the Durom Cup hip implant component due to a high number of patient complaints.  If you or a loved one has been injured by this defective device, we urge you to contact one of our Durom Cup hip implant injury lawyers as soon as possible to discuss your case.

The Durom Cup has been implanted in over 12,000 patients since it was first sold in the United States in 2006. The Durom Acetabular Component is a monoblock cup made of cobal chromium alloy, which is made from a single piece of material. It is designed for use in combination with Zimmer’s Metasul Metal-on-Metal Tribological Solution LDH (Large Diameter Heads). 

The Durom Cup was designed  for use in young, active patients who are likely to outlive a conventional hip prosthesis.  Unfortunately,  it has been alleged that patients implanted with this devie  often experienced crippling pain following surgery, leaving them more disabled than they had been before their hip replacement. Because of such problems, a  large percentage of patients receiving the Durom Cup may need to undergo additional surgery to have this allegedly defective component replaced.

Zimmer Ignored Durom Cup Complaints

Possible problems with the Durom Cup hip implant first became apparent in April 2008, when Los Angeles surgeon Dr. Lawrence Dorr publicly warned other orthopedists about cup failures his patients were experiencing.  According to Dr. Dorr - who was also a highly paid consultant for Zimmer - months after routine hip replacements, patients who had expected to live without pain were in agony.

After informing colleagues in a professional society about his experience with the Durom Cup, Dr. Dorr heard from several other doctors who reported similar problems.  The Durom Cup hip implant injury lawyers at our firm have also heard from numerous people about the crippling pain they experienced following their implantation with this defective device.

According to Dr. Dorr and other physicians, x-rays of patients who received defective Durom Cups showed that the socket was separating from bone, rather than fusing with it. For patients, who had been told their new hips might last 15 to 20 years, it meant agony as the metal cup moved around in the hip socket and rubbed against bone.   Such crippling injuries are devastating, and many Durom cup recipients reported that they were in much worse shape after their surgery than before. 

In early 2008, Dr. Dorr reported his concerns about the Durom Cup to executives at Zimmer.   The doctor said  his complaints fell on deaf ears.   Zimmer actually had the audacity to blame Dr. Dorr's surgical techniques for the problems his patients experienced.  At the time, Zimmer did nothing to address his concerns.

It is odd that Zimmer would blame Dr. Dorr's skills for the Dorum Cup problems his patients experienced, given that the surgeon was a company consultant.  What's more, Dr. Dorr is a veteran of more than 5,000 hip replacement surgeries.  At 67, he has been performing these operations for decades. 

Zimmer's alleged attempts to blame Dr. Dorr for failures caused by ithis device indicate that the company may have been more interested in protecting its own bottom line than patient well-being.  It is the intention of our Durom Cup hip implant lawyers to hold Zimmer accountable for this negligence.

Zimmer Finally Suspends Sales of Durom Cup

In April 2008, after being rebuffed by Zimmer, Dr. Dorr took his concerns to the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons. In late May, Zimmer finally informed surgeons that it was investigating Dr. Dorr’s complaint but that it did not suspend sales, as the doctor had recommended.  While it investigated complaints, roughly 1300 more patients were implanted with the Durom Cup in the U.S.

According to Zimmer's own investigation, some clinics using the Durom Cup experienced failure rates as high as 5.7%.  In spite of the evidence that something was amiss with the design of the Durom Cup, Zimmer is still blaming doctors for its high failure rate.  Our Durom Cup hip implant injury lawyers find it difficult to believe that so many surgeons could be making the very same mistakes that have led to hundreds of similar patient complaints and injuries. 

Despite its contention that the Durom Cup implant is safe, Zimmer has stopped marketing the device in the U.S.  The company has also stopped the enrollment of an investigational clinical trial evaluating Durom in hip resurfacing procedures.  Zimmer, however, will not give up on the Durom Cup.   The company plans  to update the labeling for the device, and reintroduce to the U.S. market by 2009.

Legal Help for Durom Cup Hip Implant Victims

If you or a loved one has experienced crippling pain or injury following implantation with the Zimmer Durom Cup hip implant component, you have valuable legal rights.  Please fill out our online form, or call 1-800-LAW-INFO (1-800-529-4636) to discuss your case with an experienced Durom Cup hip implant lawyer.

]]>