Two events recently happened in the world of the DePuy ASR hip recall . First, DePuy spokesperson Mindy Tinsley announced that DePuy’s president, David Floyd, has submitted his resignation. His wish to “pursue outside interests” is a reason he tells for his resignation. A replacement is yet to be announced and Floyd is anticipated to leave the company soon.

Floyd’s departure is unlikely due to his desire to “pursue outside interests.” He has served office as president since 2007. It is probable that Floyd has already known of the issues associated with both the ASR XL Acetabular System and the ASR Hip Resurfacing System and their apparent failure among recipients. He still haven’t done anything to address the issue. The United States Food and Drugs Administration received about four hundred reports from recipients complaining about how the ASRs have caused them pain and suffering. Only when the public knew of how defective the hip replacement were did DePuy recall the products. It wasn’t until August 2010 that DePuy recalled the hip replacements.

Out of the 93,000 DePuy hip replacement devices sold worldwide, approximately 11,000 need a revision surgery. Pain, limited or loss of mobility, dislocation, and metal toxicity resulting from metal debris getting flaked off from the device components are just some of the reported effects of having been implanted with the defective devices. Nerve damage may occur when one is suffering from metal poisoning.

The other update regarding the DePuy recall is that in a court order dated March 4, David A. Katz, the federal judge presiding over the DePuy multidistrict litigation (In re: DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. ASR Hip Implant Products (no. 1:10 md 2197)), postponed a March 9 status conference to April 5. The two parties involved are then made to present an extensive plan related to pretrial discovery. The status conference will be held in West Palm Beach, Florida’s U.S. Courthouse.

These recent developments prove the the DePuy litigation is starting to take off in a positive way, at least for those who wish to gain compensation from the company. Some of it may be too much for company officials to digest causing them to make hasty decisions. Whatever the case may be, recipients of the ASRs and their lawyers alike are bent on making DePuy be held liable for the harm the devices have inflicted. For more information about the resignation of the DePuy president and the upcoming MDL conference , check out the DePuy ASR recall website.

Tracking hip implants and other replacement devices is the sole job of an artificial joint registry which, sadly, the United States does not have at present. This would serve as a detector for badly designed or untested devices that protects the public’s health and wellbeing. Currently, countries such as the United Kingdom, Australia, Japan, and Norway all have established a joint registry. In fact, it was the National Joint Registry for England and Wales which prompted the DePuy hip replacement recall. Although the company had received negative reports from foreign joint registries regarding the ASRs’ higher-than-normal failure rate, the company still sold the implants. The recall of both ASR XL Acetabular Hip System and ASR Hip Resurfacing System is proof that the US is in dire need of an artificial joint registry.

Part of the problem, though, lies with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) approval process. The FDA’s 510(k) preapproval process is taken advantage of by corporations like DePuy Orthopaedics so that it can develop new artificial joints and then rush them to the market easily. This process allows companies to claim that their products are “substantially equivalent” to ones already on the market, which means they aren’t subject to clinical trials. But the DePuy has also boasted of the ASR series being a result of a new technology. It makes one wonder how the company managed to convince the FDA that the ASRs were “substantially equivalent” to existing hip replacements.

The public should be concerned about the lack of artificial joint registry which gives companies such as DePuy no legal obligation whatsoever to collect information concerning adverse effects of their drugs or medical devices. And because DePuy is not obligated to collect pertinent data, they do not need to inform the FDA about the status and adverse data concerning its hip replacements. It could continue selling the ASR implants by claiming ignorance.

It is obvious that having a joint replacement registry could prevent another DePuy recall and would be an advantage to future hip recipients. Companies won’t be too careless in manufacturing products that could harm consumers. If you have been adversely affected by the defective ASR devices, you may contact an experienced hip replacement lawyer to help you through the process of acquiring compensation from DePuy. More information is available when you visit the hip replacement recall center.

Annually, about 250,000 hip replacement procedures are commonly performed in the United States. Only 1-3 percent of those procedures will require corrective surgery. This small population should be manageable for regulators to quickly identify and track defective hip replacements.It is unfortunate that the U.S. does not have any type of national artificial joint registration implemented. This lack of a regulatory system along with the prolonged amount of time it takes for a hip replacement to malfunction has allowed DePuy to sell 93,000 hip replacements worldwide unregulated. This ultimately resulted in the ASR hip replacement recall affecting thousands of patients today.

Australia and the United Kingdom are two countries that do have artificial joint registries in effect and were able to detect the defective implants immediately. The National Joint Registry in Australia reported the DePuy hip replacements as having higher than normal failure rates as early as 2007. In 2009, DePuy took subsequent action and voluntarily withdrew its products from the market. Similarly, the National Joint Registry of England and Wales was also effective in the early discovery of defective hip replacements. Published studies by researchers at Oxford University presented statistically that 3.4 percent of patients out of 660 who received DePuy metal-on-metal hip implants suffered from signs and symptoms of metallosis. These studies also showed that 155 patients who received another company’s metal hip implants did not experience any similar side effects.

At the same time, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration received several hundred complaints about the metal-on-metal device, but without a national registry to regulate these defective implants, no action was taken.Testimonies from numerous surgeons have come to light, stating that they had alerted DePuy early on about the complications caused by their hip replacements, but received little to no response. The public was not aware about the seriousness of this issue until the media began reporting about DePuy’s higher than normal failure rates in 2010. With increasing pressure from the public and the FDA, DePuy finally initiated a recall in August of 2010.

DePuy was aware of its defective products and avoided initiating a recall. It is apparently clear that the company disregarded the health and safety of the consumer in order to avoid having more defective products undergo a public recall.Victims receiving defective hip implants and who want proper punitive damages should consult with an experienced lawyer handling these types of cases.Details regarding ongoing litigation can be found on the DePuy hip replacement recall website.

Patients all across North America who undergo surgical procedures have high expectations of the procedures performed and the devices that are used in the operating room. These same patients also expect that these techniques and devices have undergone thorough research, testing, and have produced high levels of safety. With the current DePuy hip recall , patients are starting to not only question the safety of hip implants, but the safety of medical implants in general. Therefore, it is important that patients undergoing hip replacement surgery should educate themselves as to the types of hip implant systems that are available and compare each one in order to chose which one is best suited for them. The following are the four most common types:

· Metal-on-plastic

The basic composition of this implant is a metal femoral head with a liner made up of standard plastic polyethylene. This type is not well suited for patients who are younger and more active since standard polyethylene liners are highly susceptible to erosion. These types of patients will often need corrective surgery within seven to ten years of the original procedure. Best suited for these types of implants are patients that are elderly and/or with lower levels of daily activity. These hip implant systems are recommended for patients who are elderly and/or who have lower levels of daily physical activity.

· Metal-on-highly crosslinked polyethylene

Although fundamentally similar to metal-on-plastic hip replacements, these types of systems are composed of crosslinking polyethylene which creates a more durable and stable hip implant. This type of system has replaced the standard metal-on-plastic system and is ideally suited for the younger, more physically active types of patients.

· Metal-on-metal

This class of implant is currently the focus of the DePuy hip replacement recall; however, different brands other than DePuy do not have the same reputation. Significant failure rates have not been reported coming from these types of hip implants among other manufacturers. Before the recall, this class of hip implant had the reputation of producing stability and longevity. It should be noted that patients with any sensitivity or allergy to metal should take caution and avoid this type of hip implant. Friction of the implant components releases metal particles into the bloodstream, which may cause an inflammatory reaction and nerve damage.

· Metal-on-ceramic

Metal-on-ceramic hip replacements are more resistant to erosion, as opposed to the other types. With regards to wear and tear, metal-on-ceramic outperforms both metal and plastic types of hip implants. Despite being more susceptible to breaks and fractures, this type has a lower risk of causing an allergic response.

The recall has questioned the safety of the different types of hip implants like DePuy’s . Patients undergoing hip replacement surgery should still research the different types of hip implants that are accessible to them. Patients should also talk with their surgeon to figure out with implant would best accommodate their level of physical activity, age, health, current health of their bones, and other factors. Those affected by the hip replacement recall should consult a licensed attorney regarding their options. Information regarding the hip replacement recall is available on the DePuy implant recall website.

Why does Zimmer kept on recalling its public statements in support of their medical devices? Will Knee Replacement Recall continue being unfounded information? In what way a consumer can file a lawsuit against Zimmer? Stop worrying now, because there have been two case studies with corresponding valid complaints that will surely hit Zimmer. These are actually two different studies but of the same subject – the Zimmer Holdings medical device. The first study was conducted by the former consultant of Zimmer, Dr. Richard Berger. He wants to prove that his speculations are true. It was already laddered to Zimmer’s hands before he ceased the company. However, Zimmer puts too much shields in its company. Zimmer blamed Dr. Berger’s minimal invasive surgical techniques rather than the device. It was a public statement that somehow will destroy the image of the surgeon.

One more study conducted by Dr. Lawrence Dorr, a hip surgeon also found some premature failures of Zimmer Durom Cup hip-replacement device. Like Dr. Berger, he also presented his study at the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons in early 2008. As Zimmer’s reply, its public statement blamed Dr. Dorr’s improper use of surgical techniques. The way Zimmer reacts repeatedly in its public statement against those surgeons is clear enough of having such an over-secured strategy. Apparently, they defended just to throw surgeon’s unfavorable claims back to him. Zimmer NexGen Knee Replacement Recall is NOT unfounded information. It is clear that Zimmer has failed to meet the standards of the industry. If more substantial evidence will arise for sure filing Zimmer Knee lawsuit will be available. How much reactions that Zimmer showed in its hip and knee device failures, reflects its company’s credibility. Anyone of us can be a victim of this crisis. If your knee-replacement device has failed, you know you need a lawyer for the compensation you deserve.