Finsbury Adept 12/14 Modular Head – Medical Device Alert

Article by
Kevin Timms

The UK medical device manufacturer has issued a formal Medical Device Alert in respect of the Finsbury Adept 12/14 Modular Head, a component used in the Finsbury Adept Total Hip Replacement. This is a metal on metal hip implant.

Whilst the Medical Device Alert has not specifically said this is a formal recall of the Finsbury Adept metal Modular Head, it reaffirms the Urgent Field Safety Notice issued by Finsbury Orthopaedics on 15 January 2013 that the Finsbury Adept metal Modular Head should not be implanted and all affected devices should be returned to DePuy International Limited.

Whilst a different manufacturer, DePuy International Limited purchased Finsbury Orthopaedics Limited in 2009. DePuy is the manufacturer of the recalled ASR metal on metal hip implant, in which Garden House Solicitors are already bringing claims.

Garden House Solicitors are instructed by a growing number of patients who have been injured as a result of the Finsbury Adept metal Modular Head when used as a total hip replacement and are forming a group action against the manufacturer.

If you or someone you know have suffered adverse symptoms as a result of these implants, whether you have had revision surgery or not, please contact Kevin Timms for free advice on whether you could bring a claim against Finsbury Orthopaedics Limited and join a group of claimants suffering from similar problems.

Kevin is also instructed by individuals with the Finsbury Adept resurfacing metal on metal hip implant and non approved Finsbury Adept Total Hip Replacements.

Kevin can be contacted on 01992 422 128 or at kevin@gardenhousesolicitors.co.uk.

 
www.gardenhousesolicitors.co.uk

---

Tel: 01992 422 128

---

Email: info@gardenhousesolicitors.co.uk
The contents of this article are intended for general information purposes only and shall not be deemed to be, or constitute legal advice. We cannot accept responsibility for any loss as a result of acts or omissions taken in respect of this article.

Finsbury ADEPT Total Hip Replacement Claims

Article by
Kevin Timms

A number of individuals with Finsbury ADEPT Total Hip Replacements have instructed Garden House Solicitors to pursue a compensation claim.

The Finsbury ADEPT Total Hip Replacement (THR) was manufactured by Finsbury Orthopaedics Limited which was acquired by DePuy International Limited in 2009 and now forms part of the Johnson and Johnson group of companies.

The Finsbury ADEPT THR is a metal on metal hip replacement consisting of a metal stem, a metal modular head and a metal acetabular cup.

Kevin Timms of Garden House Solicitors is instructed to bring claims on behalf of a group of claimants on the grounds that the Finsbury ADEPT THR metal on metal (MoM) hip implant has an inherent design defect which leads to the excessive release of cobalt and chromium ions into the area around the ADEPT MoM hip implant.

The Finsbury ADEPT MoM THR was the subject of an Urgent Field Safety Notice on 15 January 2013. As a result of higher than expected revision rates for the ADEPT 12/14 Modular Head, DePuy has ordered that all ADEPT 12/14 Modular heads held by hospitals should be quarantined and returned to the manufacturer. The manufacturer states that problems associated with the ADEPT THR which led to premature revision surgery include loosening of the stem, soft tissue reactions and pain.

Garden House Solicitors have noted that as a result of these cobalt and chromium ions, patients have suffered from their muscles and bones being destroyed. Patients have needed revision surgery prematurely as a result of the damaged caused by their Finsbury ADEPT MoM THR. In some cases, the damage has been so extensive that patients have been left with an ongoing disability. Often the full extent of the damage caused by a Finsbury ADEPT MoM implant is unknown until a patient requires revision surgery where extensive metallosis and tissue and bone necrosis is noted. This can make the process of performing revision surgery more complex and result in the replacement hip implant not lasting as long as expected.

It is important that patients with a Finsbury ADEPT MoM THR contact their surgeon to arrange for an appropriate investigation to take place which should include blood tests to measure the level of cobalt and chromium ions and an MRI scan. This is all the more important if you are suffering from pain in the groin, have trouble walking or experience grinding, noises or swelling associated with the Finsbury ADEPT hip implant.

Kevin Timms is forming a group of claimants and encourages anyone with a Finsbury ADEPT MoM THR to contact him for free advice on whether a compensation claim can be taken forward on a No Win No Fee agreement.

Kevin specialises in defective product claims and is in receipt of instructions from all over the country in respect of metal on metal hip implants, both resurfacing and total hip replacement. The symptoms experienced from these hip implants are not acceptable and after sustaining life changing injuries as a result of a MoM hip implant you should seek legal advice from someone who has the expertise and understanding to guide you in your claim and to identify the right defendant to pursue.

Kevin can be contacted on 01992 422 128 or at kevin@gardenhousesolicitors.co.uk.

www.gardenhousesolicitors.co.uk

---

Tel: 01992 422 128

---

Email: info@gardenhousesolicitors.co.uk

The contents of this article are intended for general information purposes only and shall not be deemed to be, or constitute legal advice. We cannot accept responsibility for any loss as a result of acts or omissions taken in respect of this article.

PIP Breast Implant Group Litigation Order Claims - Register of Claimants due to Close

Added by
Kevin Timms

www.gardenhousesolicitors.co.uk

---

Tel: 01992 422 128

---

Email: info@gardenhousesolicitors.co.uk
The contents of this article are intended for general information purposes only and shall not be deemed to be, or constitute legal advice. We cannot accept responsibility for any loss as a result of acts or omissions taken in respect of this article.

PyroTITAN Humeral Resurfacing Shoulder Implant Recalled

Article by
Kevin Timms

Integra LifeSciences is voluntarily recalling one lot of its PyroTITAN Humeral Resurfacing Arthroplasty due to the belief that there might be a manufacturing defect which may lead to premature failure of the shoulder implant.

The recall has been made following the notification to the PyroTITAN Humeral Resurfacing shoulder implant manufacturer that and implant was found with a fracture when it was being revised.

The manufacturer is recalling all products within the same lot so that additional testing and investigation can take place to determine is a manufacturing defect exists with this lot. PyroTITAN Humeral Resurfacing shoulder implants with the lot number 09-2119 are effected by the recall.

If your PyroTITAN shoulder implant has failed prematurely it may be as a result of a manufacturing defect and you may be entitled to make a compensation claim. For further information please contact Kevin Timms on 01992 422 128 or email Kevin at Kevin@gardenhousesolicitors.co.uk. 

www.gardenhousesolicitors.co.uk

---

Tel: 01992 422 128

---

Email: info@gardenhousesolicitors.co.uk

The contents of this article are intended for general information purposes only and shall not be deemed to be, or constitute legal advice. We cannot accept responsibility for any loss as a result of acts or omissions taken in respect of this article.

R3 Acetabular System Recalled by Smith & Nephew

Article by
Kevin Timms

The metal liner component of the R3 acetabular hip implant system manufactured by Smtih & Nephew has been recalled as a result of an unacceptably high early revision rate.

The MHRA released a Medical Device Alert on 25 June 2012 informing the medical profession of the recall.

It is reported that 281 of the R3 metal liners have been implanted in patients in the UK. Statistics show that there is a high premature revision rate associated with the R3 acetabular hip implant system with a revision rate of 6.3% at four years.

For those who have a metal liner component of the R3 acetabuler hip implant system, the advice is the same as that for all metal on metal hip implants. Blood metal ion testing should be carried out to test the levels of cobalt and chromium. For patients with levels above 7ppb there is a risk that there is a potential soft tissue reaction and a further cobalt chromium blood tests should be carried out three months later. If cobalt and chromium levels remain high (or are higher) a further investigation should be carried out with use of imaging. Where imaging shows an abnormality, revision should be considered with the patient’s surgeon.

Garden House Solicitors have been instructed by numerous women with metal on metal hip implants from a variety of manufacturers. If you have a metal liner component of the R3 acetabular hip implant system and have suffered from adverse symptoms you may be entitled to make a metal on metal hip implant compensation claim. For further details please contact Kevin Timms on 01992 422 128 or email Kevin at kevin@gardenhousesolicitors.co.uk

www.gardenhousesolicitors.co.uk

---

Tel: 01992 422 128

---

Email: info@gardenhousesolicitors.co.uk

The contents of this article are intended for general information purposes only and shall not be deemed to be, or constitute legal advice. We cannot accept responsibility for any loss as a result of acts or omissions taken in respect of this article.

Finsbury ADEPT Metal on Metal Hip Implant

Article by
Kevin Timms

Finsbury ADEPT metal on metal hip implants were acclaimed as a “precision bearing, controlled using proprietary techniques developed specifically for metal on metal”. The Finsbury Orthopaedics ADEPT metal on metal hip resurfacing was intended to be a leading product. However, Garden House Solicitors have a number of clients and have received many enquiries from those who would disagree.

Biomet Metal on Metal Hip Implant Compensation Claim

Article by
Kevin Timms

Metal on Metal (“MoM”) hip implants are at the centre of controversy at present. Metal on metal hip implants were supposed to be revolutionary and were intended for younger patients who led active lives. However, many of the metal on metal hip implants were brought to market without having full clinical trials.

Investigation for Metal on Metal Hip Implants

Article by
Kevin Timms

It is widely accepted that there are inherent problems with metal on metal hip implants. Anyone who has a metal on metal hip implant and has experienced adverse symptoms should be seeking advice from their care providers. However, in the experience of Garden House Solicitors, there are some care providers who are not familiar with the investigation process and where this is the case, patients should request a proper investigation in line with MHRA advice.

Metal on Metal Hip Implants – An Experiment

Article by
Kevin Timms

In a recent article by the BMJ, following an investigation by the BMJ and BBC Newsnight, it has been found that hundreds of thousands of individuals around the world have effectively been participating in an uncontrolled experiment.

Defective Product Claims - Inadequate Product Warning

Article by
Kevin Timms

Many allegations in defective product compensation claims arise where a manufacturer has failed to give an adequate warning of dangers associated with a product and any necessary instructions or directions for use. It may also be alleged that a manufacturer has made a declaration as to the safety of a product (whether this be express or implied). In this respect such a declaration may come in the form of personal assurances, advertising or in the general presentation or labeling of the product.

Defective Product Claims - Design Defect

Article by
Kevin Timms

A product may be defective if it is unsafe for its intended use because of a design defect.

A defective product compensation claim in respect of a design defect can often be complex as the design of a product may involve a number of variables including durability, aesthetics and ergonomics.

Defective Product Claims - Manufacturing Defects

Article by
Kevin Timms

As a consumer, you are entitled to expect that a product conforms to the standard of safety common to that product generally and as marketed by the product manufacturer. Where an individual product fails to comply with that standard because it was not manufactured as intended, then that product will be defective. If that defect causes a personal injury to an individual a defective product compensation claim can be brought against the manufacturer of that defective product under the Consumer Protection Act 1987.

Another 7,000 women with unauthorised PIP breast implants

Article by
Kevin Timms

It has just been announced that an additional 7,000 women are known to have been provided with PIP breast implants. This brings the total number of women with PIP breast implants to over 50,000.

Kevin Timms of Garden House Solicitors who has been appointed to the steering committee along with four other solicitors which shall be taking the PIP litigation forward was asked to comment on the breaking news live on Sky News today as the story aired.

He commented that there will be a Group Litigation Order which will decide the outcome of all PIP claims being made. This is being pursued by the PIP steering committee.

For those women who have concerns about their health or have only just become aware that they have received PIP breast implants, they should seek medical advice from their GP or implanting surgeon.

Furthermore, the MHRA have just announced today that there is no guarantee that PIP breast implants sold prior to 2001 did not contain unauthorised silicone gel. The MHRA have therefore recommended that all women with PIP breast implants be supported in accordance with the Department of Health’s recommendations of January 2012.

For more information please contact Julie Retallick on 01992 422 128 or email Julie on Julie@gardenhousesolicitors.co.uk.

http://www.gardenhousesolicitors.co.uk/

---

Tel: 01992 422 128

---

Email: info@gardenhousesolicitors.co.uk

The contents of this article are intended for general information purposes only and shall not be deemed to be, or constitute legal advice. We cannot accept responsibility for any loss as a result of acts or omissions taken in respect of this article.

Credit Card Provider Pays Up for PIP Breast Implants

Article by
Kevin Timms

It was announced today that a credit card provider, Lloyds TSB, has reimbursed a PIP patient £3,700 for her PIP breast implants.

The President of BAAPS has described this as a "ray of hope" for other PIP patients.

Many women who have PIP breast implants seek a similar remedy. However, for those who have suffered a rupture of their PIP breast implants or other adverse symptoms, this remedy would be insufficient. Where an injury is identifiable in a particular patient, that patient is entitled to all of her financial losses in addition to personal injury compensation. 

Where PIP breast implants were paid for by credit card it may be possible to bring a like claim against the credit provider as the clinic itself.

If you have concerns about your PIP breast implants please contact Kevin Timms or Julie Retallick on 01992 422 128 or email the team at info@gardenhousesolicitors.co.uk. 

www.gardenhousesolicitors.co.uk

---

Tel: 01992 422 128

---

Email: info@gardenhousesolicitors.co.uk

The contents of this article are intended for general information purposes only and shall not be deemed to be, or constitute legal advice. We cannot accept responsibility for any loss as a result of acts or omissions taken in respect of this article.

Metal on Metal Hip Implant Update

Article by
Kevin Timms

The MHRA issued further advice on metal on metal hip implants, such as the DePuy ASR and Finsbury ADEPT hip implants, on 28 February 2012. The advice is that patients with a metal on metal hip implant should be monitored every year for the life of their hip implant.

The Clinical Director of the MHRA has confirmed that “patients have a small risk of suffering from complications from having metal on metal hip implants”. She further said that the MHRA has “updated patient management and monitoring advice to surgeons and doctors that they should annually monitor patients for the lifetime of their metal on metal total hip replacements”.

Many patients with metal on metal hip implants develop progressive soft tissue reactions to the metal wear debris associated with the metal on metal hip implant. This can lead to difficult revision surgery for the metal prosthesis.  Experts have suggested that the early revision of poorly performing metal on metal hip implants should provide a better revision outcome.

If you have been provided with a metal on metal hip implant such as a DePuy ASR, Finsbury ADEPT, Corin Cormet or Zimmer Durom and have been experiencing problems contact Kevin Timms to discuss your prospects of bringing a metal on metal hip implant compensation claim. 

We are also investigating claims where the hip implant used was not a metal on metal hip implant. 

Kevin can be contacted on 01992 422 128 or by email at Kevin@gardenhousesolicitors.co.uk.

www.gardenhousesolicitors.co.uk

---

Tel: 01992 422 128

---

Email: info@gardenhousesolicitors.co.uk

The contents of this article are intended for general information purposes only and shall not be deemed to be, or constitute legal advice. We cannot accept responsibility for any loss as a result of acts or omissions taken in respect of this article.

Nearly 3,000 NHS referrals for PIP Implants following Private Surgery

Article by
Kevin Timms

Over 2,800 women have sought assistance from the NHS where their private cosmetic surgery clinic no longer exists or refuses to assist their patients.

The Health Minister, Anne Milton, said “Most patients who have been forced to get help from the NHS … seem to be choosing not to have their implants removed”. She also stated “This appears to show that these women are getting the reassurance they need from speaking to an expert or having a scan”.

PIP Implants are Yours and Not Your Clinics

Article by
Kevin Timms

The Problem

An increasing number of our clients are being told by their clinics and surgeons that when their implants are removed and/or replaced that their PIP implants cannot be given back to them as their “PIP implants are medical waste”.

This practice is not acceptable and it is vital that any women who are having their PIP implants removed are given their implants back following surgery as those implants are evidence for any PIP implant claim that an individual may have.

What is Wrong With PIP Breast Implants?

Article by
Kevin Timms

The European Commission has engaged the services of the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks to compile a report (“the Report”) on breast implants manufactured by Poly Implant Protheses (“PIP”).

The Report was published on 1 February 2012 and deal with the primary problems with the PIP breast implants.

The Report found that the evidence available indicates that many PIP breast implants were manufactured from industrial grade silicone which is of lower quality than medical grade silicone.

New France Data on PIP Breast Implants

Article by
Kevin Timms

The French medical device regulator AFSSAPS has released further data with regard to  the rupture rates of faulty breast implants manufactured by Poly Implant Protheses ("PIP").

1379 PIP breast implant ruptures have been reported to AFSSAPS between 2001 and January 2012. Of these PIP breast implants 55% ruptured within the first five years of implantation. AFSSPAS have stated that the early ruptures were as a result of PIP breast implant failure.

PIP Breast Implants – UK Remains Ignorant Whilst Europe Takes Action

Article by
Kevin Timms

The UK Government has finally started to take concerns of women with Poly Implant Prothese ("PIP") breast implants into account but the approach is still carried out in ignorance.

The Government is to hold a crisis meeting with the private cosmetic surgery clinics on 13 February 2012. This will undoubtedly put more pressure on the clinics to take further responsibility but this, regretfully, does not mean that the Government will be publicly accepting the inherent defects in the implants – only then will the private cosmetic surgery clinic feel an obligation to assist women with PIP breast implants.