Tags
BHR, BHR System, Food & Drug Administration, Hip Replacement, hip resurfacing, metal ions, Metal on metal hip, metal-on-metal hips, metallosis, NephewSmith, Premarket Approval, Smith & Nephew, surgery
Source: www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/05/briefing/2005-4181b1_03_SSED_BHR_080505.pdf.
SUMMARY OF SAFETY AND EFFECTIVENESS DATA
PREMARKET APPROVAL APPLICATION P040033
SMITH & NEPHEW BHR
BIRMINGHAM HIP RESURFACING SYSTEM
Download the original file here: SUMMARY OF SAFETY AND EFFECTIVENESS DATA 2005-4181b1_03_SSED_BHR_080505
Excerpts from the document:
2.0 INDICATION FOR USE
The Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) System is a single use device intended for hybrid fixation: cemented femoral head component and cementless acetabular component. The BHR system is intended for use in patients requiring primary hip resurfacing arthroplasty due to:
• Non-inflammatory arthritis (degenerative joint disease) such as osteoarthritis, traumatic arthritis, avascular necrosis, or dysplasia/DDH, or
• Inflammatory arthritis such as rheumatoid arthritis.
BHR System hip resurfacing arthroplasty is intended for joint replacement in patients who are at risk of requiring future, ipsilateral hip joint revision. While it is impossible to predict if a patient will require more than one joint replacement, several factors are known to increase risk of revision surgery including age less than 55 years at index surgery and/or high physical activity level postoperative.
5.0 POTENTIALADVERSE EFFECTS OF THE DEVICE ON HEALTH
The following adverse effects may occur in association with most any artificial hip replacement
surgery including the BHR System:
- Cardiovascular complications including venous thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, or myocardial infarction,
- Sudden, pronounced, intraoperative blood pressure decrease due to the use of bone cement,
- Hematoma or damage to blood vessels resulting in large blood loss.
- Delayed wound healing,
- Infection,
- Temporary or permanent nerve damage resulting functional and/or sensory deficits in the affected limb,
- Metal sensitivity reactions or allergic reactions or metallosis,
- Dislocation or subluxation leading to post-operative joint instability (which may be caused by malpositioning of the implants, or muscle or fibrous tissue laxity),
- Component loosening or migration due to trauma, loss of fixation, malalignment, or bone resorption,
- Limb length discrepancy,
- Increased hip pain and/or reduced hip function.
- Fatigue fracture of the implants as a result of excessive loading, malalignment, or trauma,
- Osteolysis and/or other peri-prosthetic bone loss,
- • Unintended bone perforation or fracture occurring either intra-operatively or post-operatively as a result of trauma, excessive loading, osteolysis, or osteoporosis,
- Periarticular calcification or ossification,
- Wear or deformation of the articular surface as a result of excessive loading or implant malalignment.
Any of these adverse effects may require medical or surgical intervention. Rarely, complications may lead to death.
Related articles
- FDA Pre Market Approval (PMA) of Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) System – P040033 (earlsview.com)
- Smith & Nephew – BHR PMA – FIRST OF A KIND PMA – WHO PULLED WHAT STRINGS???? (earlsview.com)
- Despite the Reasons AGAINST – FDA Advisory Panel Recommends Conditional Approval of Smith & Nephew’s BIRMINGHAM HIP Resurfacing Technology (earlsview.com)
- P040033: BIRMINGHAM HIP RESURFACING (BHR) SYSTEM by SMITH&NEPHEW ORTHOPAEDICS – FDAzilla Devices (earlsview.com)
- Smith & Nephew’s :Response to Wright Medical Technology’s Citizen’s Petition to Deny PPrIA P040033 (earlsview.com)
- FDA Defense of its Decision to Grant PMA to Smith & Nephew’s BHR… (earlsview.com)
- Post-Approval Studies for Smith & Nephew BHR – NOT USEFUL (earlsview.com)
- Wright Medical’s Response to Smith & Nephew’s Response to WMT request to Deny BHR PMA (earlsview.com)
- Kathryn’s Story – More Smith & Nephew Birmingham Hip Resurfacing Misery… (earlsview.com)
- Attachments to Wright Medical’s request to Deny PMA to Smith & Nephew BHR (earlsview.com)
Pingback: Metal on metal hip resurfacing using the BHR, Cormet 2000, or Conserve Plus devices does not meet CTAF criteria 3-5 for safety, efficacy and improvement in health outcomes for patients as an alternative to total hip arthroplasty « Earl's View
Pingback: Hip resurfacing: A boon for Boomers or too risky? « Earl's View
Pingback: METAL ON METAL TOTAL HIP RESURFACING AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO TOTAL HIP ARTHROPLASTY « Earl's View
Pingback: Smith & Nephew – Class 2 Recall R3 Constrained Acetabular Liner « Earl's View
Pingback: Patient undergoes four joint replacement surgeries – Times Of India « Earl's View
Pingback: Smith & Nephew BHR FDA-required Post-Approval Studies « Earl's View
Pingback: What’s new in hip op surgery | Arthritis Research UK « Earl's View
Pingback: Revision of hip resurfacing arthroplasty with a bone-conserving short-stem implant « Earl's View
Pingback: Thromboprophylaxis after joint replacement misses targets | Rheumatology Update « Earl's View
Pingback: Jumbo cup in revision hip arthroplasty 53 cases with 84 months of follow-up – Orthopaedia Proceedings - Orthopaedia « Earl's View
Pingback: Smith & Nephew Birmingham hip resurfacing – THE PREVALENCE OF FAILURE « Earl's View
Pingback: EARLY CLINICAL FAILURE OF THE BIRMINGHAM METAL-ON-METAL HIP RESURFACING IS ASSOCIATED WITH METALOSIS AND SOFT TISSUE NECROSIS « Earl's View
Pingback: Retrieval Analysis of 130 Metal-on-Metal Hips Showed that the ASR is Higher Wearing when Compared to the BHR « Earl's View
Pingback: Smith & Nephew Birmingham hip resurfacing at a mean of ten years « Earl's View