Tags
American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Cobalt chrome, Cobalt poisoning, DePuy Orthopaedics, Femur head, Food & Drug Administration, Hip Replacement, hip replacement failure, hip revision, knee replacement, Medical device, metal ions, Metal on metal hip, metallosis, MoM Hips, surgery, Total Hip Replacement, UNited States
I thought it might be helpful to show what I sent in electronically in advance of the above referenced meeting, (the specifics of which have been posted on Earl’s View before). I do this in the hope that more people will consider sending in their very similar stories to this committee, as I have learned today through conversation with the FDA that the comment window will be open through August. This certainly provides more time, and below is simply an brief explanation of what I have endured. If anyone wants more information they can call the FDA at 301-827-6860 for more specific instructions. I have also listed the email location, docket number, etc. in comments and replies to questions previously on the site here. If anyone is interested and cannot find that information, just leave a reply and I will provide it. (The Docket number that must be on your submission is also listed on the copy of my letter below). The FDA number I found today is probably the best way to proceed, to ensure your message is seen by the people that are supposed to see it (and no one else). I truly believe they will be examined and tallied, as this MoM nightmare is growing larger day by day, and our task is to make sure we are counted among those who are and have suffered because of these devices, we who were injured more by the very ‘solutions’ than we were helped. I sent mine in because I feel it is how i can best help our cause right now.
At any rate you will see that I notify the FDA in the body of text to follow that “I have attached three files that provided sufficient detail the premature failure of my Smith and Nephew metal on metal hip implant, and the recent revision necessitated by its’ faulty design“. While two of those files show ‘snapshots’ of my original THA surgery in March of 2009 and my revision in April 2012 , both of them were simply copies I’d obtained from the hospital. Both provided summaries of my procedures, the ‘products’ that were ‘installed’ in me, with the record on the revision procedure covering well my pseudotumor (metalosis) removal, necrosis that filled the underside of the hollow metal femoral ball, etc. I am not posting those hospital records for public viewing here, as they were specifically intended for the eyes of the FDA convened panel. I sent in one additional Word file listing the relevant part and serial numbers of the recently explanted Smith and Nephew devices (in my possession) that I will cut and paste here:
Explanted Smith and Nephew BHR Acetabular Cup:
74122158
08GW17690 016
C 58 MM
Explanted Smith and Nephew CO/CR Modular Femoral Head:
C 52 MM (No other identifying numbers visible on component)
Below then is just an example of what anyone can do, especially if you are in the US. I would ask that even if you are not, but have similarly suffered at the hands of Mr. Smith and his Nephew or any other manufacturer (recalled or not) to please submit your stories as well. The more of us that speak up and are heard from, the closer we are to seeing some movement from the regulatory boards that are here to protect us. Here’s a copy of the message I sent:
Document Details
Document ID:FDA-2012-N-0033 Document Type: Public Submission
This is a comment on : Orthopaedic and Rehabilitation Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting
Docket ID: FDA-2012-N-0293
Comment:
Dear Sir: I have attached three files that detail the premature failure of my Smith and Nephew metal on metal Hip implant, and the recent revision necessitated by its faulty design. The metal ions released from the metal on metal articulation of my Smith and Nephew BHR THR device poisoned my flesh, and created pseudotomors (Metalosis), foreign masses that had to be excised after the failed MoM hip was explanted. The details of this are found in the attached documents, and the Smith and Nephew BHR THR I received in March 2009 did not last three years. I received it when I was 55, and I am a very strong man. I have never experienced such pain as with this original device failure and the revision it required, my MoM THA being recently replaced on April 2nd, 2012. As an agency the public created to protect them from harm inflicted by such devices as this MoM, you have failed greatly in your task; you have not protected us from harm, and in fact have allowed our bodies to be used as a ‘test lab’ for the device manufacturers. We are human beings, not guinea pigs. I further submit that age and human strength must be factored into any success and/or failure numbers such as those provided by Smith and Nephew, because it is our younger demographic who actually tax these devices and subject them to heavier loading, as our bodies (and these devices) are simply utilized more than by us. A seventy or eighty year old does not make the same demands of an artificial joint. Demographics are an important factor and must be taken into consideration when looking at the success or failure rate associated with this Smith and Nephew MoM Hip Implant. Please see the attached files to receive more specifics of my device, as well as part and serial numbers and specific Smith and Nephew model numbers.
Thank you,
Brooks
So that’s all it takes. If you do choose to submit your story — and it can be on any device because it is MoM hips in general that should all be banned — carefully observe that your comment will be displayed publicly unless you indicate that you do not want it to be seen by all. I made this mistake myself and had the FDA take down that mistaken (my mistake) public posting of my piece. They informed me that a copy would still be held by the FDA for the Device Panel’s review, satisfying my primary objective. That FDA number again is 301-827-6860, if you have questions or need help on this. This is one way we can take action for the next few months, that our voices might be heard. I agree with Howard when he says that eventually they will hear us, that the truth will out! I will not think otherwise, as these injustices simply cannot stand.
I did send a letter outlining my ongoing pursuit to get this BioMet Magnum out of me because of ongoing health issues. These doctors need to start listening to patients because I’m convinced they are in CYA mode in most cases. In many cases they are still using standard tests for hip failure and don’t have the expertise in MoM failure.
I hope and pray for all with failing MoM devices but if yesterday was any indication of how this panel of experts will work out, we are all doomed. After stating in my letter that both financially and physically I would not be able to attend or speak at the June 27 & 28 panel hearings, I got two different phone calls from HHS FDA personell wanting to setup and confirm a time for me to address the panel. Either these people aren’t too smart or they pure and simple didn’t read my letter in it’s entirety. So I encourage all to send in a detail letter and the best we can do is hope there is someone out there on the panel with some integrity and compassion!
TAA
hello,my name is elaine,i live in the uk, my story,previous bilateral hip resurfacing,rightside,(smith&nephew) performed 5 and ahalf years ago, left side(finsbury)mom resurfacing,4 and a half years ago,pain to the groin the last six months, blood test shows raised metal ions, chromium 667 and cobalt 638, which i understand is 20 times the normal limit,both hips to be revised starting with the right one on June 19th, can’t really find out why they have failed, and the solictors are not interested unless the manufacturer is Depuy.
Pingback: Kathryn’s Story – More Smith & Nephew Birmingham Hip Resurfacing Misery… « Earl's View
Fear not Elaine, this will change, as the true horrors of metal on metal devices are simply becoming part of the record.
I have seen for quite a spell how no lawyer would look at anything but Depuy, and that guaranteed 33% involved zero risk. These guys don’t want to risk their money fighting against these device peddlers, but I have heard and can clearly see the entire MoM hip implant world will soon be on display worldwide, in all of its glorious attributions, chief of which is the destruction of human lives.
I care not of statistics. Lives are being destroyed, and the number of ‘guinea pig’ sufferers seems to be increasing daily. We all just have to hang on until this MoM lie completely crashes beneath the sheer weight of its fabrications! It is an inevitability.
IN 2006 I HAD A RIGHT SIDE ACETABULAR REVISION WITH A (YOU GUESSED IT) A DEPUY ASR BALL AND CUP. IT WAS PROBLEMATIC FROM THE GET GO AND I WAS REPEATEDLY TOLD BY THE DOC THAT THE XRAYS SHOWED A PERFECT SURGERY. IT IS NOW 2012 AND I JUST GOT MY COBALT TEST BACK @9.3 ppb. UNFORTUNATELY ALL ARTICLES I’VE READ DO NOT USE THIS UNIT OF MEASUREMENT. CAN ANYBODY HELP ME DETERMINE WHAT THIS UNIT OF MEASUREMENT MEANS?
Richard, your cobalt levels are slightly elevated (7parts per billion is the most you want), and I have attached a link for your review that pertains specifically to Depuy ASR victims. I would use the information provided in the link to determine your course of action, and I recommend you follow up with your surgeon. Not to be pessimistic, but things will likely get worse before they get better for you. Why did you get your cobalt levels tested, are you having pain in the hip?
Good luck to you, and let us know what you find out. Here you go:
http://www.mccunewright.com/assets/text/testingprotocols.pdf
Pingback: FDA PMA – how this hides the guilty and stops The Damaged and Suffering from getting Justice – Smith & Nephew « Earl's View
What type of services provided by Orthopedic and Rehabilitation Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee.
Why would Orthopaedic Surgeons ask such a trick question? (If in fact it is one, considering its grammatical ambiguity and omission of the customary question mark).
Irrespective of your intent, let us look at what SERVICES might be provided:
1. The SERVICE of hearing from those who have been victimized by the many publicly documented problems caused by metal on metal articulation.
2. The SERVICE of giving careful consideration to what they learn from such victims.
2b.The SERVICE of closely listening to the voices of the many people who have suffered so.
3. The SERVICE of implementing more stringent laws, specifically concerning the slipshod 510k approval process, i.e., requiring in vivo trials and disallowing ‘MoM Incorporated’ to gain approval from the FDA by letter, to wit: “Dear FDA friend, please allow this new product to go straight to market — it ‘looks’ just like THA designs used before, being ‘substantially equivalent’, as it were. Trust us, we would never rush to market and endanger our fellow human beings”! (Admittedly this writer’s embellishment).
3b.The SERVICE of requiring more of MoM Inc. than various tests on ‘hip simulators’.
5. Most obviously, sirs, the SERVICE of subsequently advising all parties concerned as to the most beneficial path forward, one that allows for product innovations without subjecting unwitting patients to participation in ‘field trials’. Trials in which human beings are nothing more than test subjects.
Pingback: All the Reasons WHY Smith & Nephew Birmingham Hip Resurfacing Should NOT have gotten PMA from the FDA « Earl's View
Pingback: Despite the Reasons AGAINST – FDA Advisory Panel Recommends Conditional Approval of Smith & Nephew’s BIRMINGHAM HIP Resurfacing Technology « Earl's View
Pingback: Smith & Nephew – BHR PMA – FIRST OF A KIND PMA – WHO PULLED WHAT STRINGS???? « Earl's View
Pingback: Post-Approval Studies for Smith & Nephew BHR – NOT USEFUL « Earl's View
Pingback: P040033: BIRMINGHAM HIP RESURFACING (BHR) SYSTEM by SMITH&NEPHEW ORTHOPAEDICS – FDAzilla Devices « Earl's View
Pingback: www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/05p0440/05p-0440-c000001-01-vol2.pdf « Earl's View
Pingback: Wright Medical’s Response to Smith & Nephew’s Response to WMT request to Deny BHR PMA « Earl's View
Pingback: FDA Defense of its Decision to Grant PMA to Smith & Nephew’s BHR… « Earl's View
Pingback: Attachments to Wright Medical’s request to Deny PMA to Smith & Nephew BHR « Earl's View
Pingback: Orthopaedic and Rehabilitation Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee Day 1 « Earl's View
Pingback: Orthopaedic and Rehabilitation Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee Day 2 « Earl's View
Pingback: Smith & Nephew – Class 2 Recall R3 Constrained Acetabular Liner « Earl's View