Three people have filed separate lawsuits alleging injuries as a result of defective Zimmer NexGen LPS knee replacements. The plaintiffs claim that because of complications caused by Zimmer NexGen LPS “high-flex” components, they were forced to undergo revision surgeries.
The Zimmer NexGen LPS “high-flex” components are designed to allow a greater degree of flexion. Hi-flex knee replacement surgery requires that more bone at the back of the knee be removed so that the patient may bend the joint further farther. However, the high flexion coveted by many patients will not be achieved in those whose mobility was very severely restricted before the surgery.
Sometimes, high-flex knee devices don’t always deliver as promised. In 2007, a study published in The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (British Edition) found that 38 percent of patients who underwent total knee replacement with a Zimmer NexGen LPS-Flex experienced loosening within two years. About half of those patients had to undergo revisions.
These three Zimmer NexGen LPS knee replacement lawsuits were filed in Michigan, Minnesota, and Kentucky. All of the lawsuits allege the higher flexion allowed by this particular knee replacement also poses a higher risk of loosening. The complaints further allege that Zimmer downplayed and understated the risk of problems with Zimmer NexGen LPS-Flex Gender Solutions.
As we’ve reported previously, Zimmer NexGen LPS knee components were recalled last September. The recall involved 158 flex gender femoral components and 192 femoral components of various sizes. The devices were sold in the U.S., Germany, Spain, France, UK, Italy, Sweden, South Africa, Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Poland, Romania, and Austria. These recalls were issued because some of the devices were found to have nonconforming and inconsistent geometry.
The Zimmer NexGen LPS isn’t the only knee replacement system that has put Zimmer in the legal crosshairs. Its NexGen CR-Flex Porous Femoral knee – another high-flex knee replacement system – has also been targeted in product liability lawsuits. Just last month, we reported that an Illinois man had filed a federal lawsuit claiming that system was defective and failed less than three years after it was implanted. Just a year after the plaintiff underwent knee surgery with the system in 2007, it was determined that his implant as loosening. His revision took place in 2010.