Hundreds of patients sue over ‘defective’ all-metal hip replacements

HIP replacement patients are demanding compensation over ‘defective’ implants that allegedly left them up to 100 times more likely to need the devices replaced.

More than 300 claimants are fighting manufacturing firm DePuy in the High Court over its metal-on-metal implants, arguing many of them had been injured and required further surgery.

The court was told patients fitted with DePuy’s Pinnacle Ultamet implants were 40 to 100 times more likely to need the joint replaced than those with other implants because they released metal particles, causing muscle tissue to die.

Their complaints included pain, difficulty walking, swelling and numbness.

While 341 claimants are fighting the case, hundreds of thousands of the implants were sold worldwide before they were discontinued. Conventional hip replacements differ because they also have plastic components.

It is understood that since 2002, when they went on the market in Britain, 12,000 of the metal implants were fitted here. Speaking in court yesterday, Robin Oppenheim QC, for the claimants, said: ‘The implants were discontinued in 2013. Around 260,000 of them were sold worldwide until then.’

Mr Oppenheim also told the court that data from the National Joint Registry suggested patients with the Pinnacle Ultamet implants were around three to six times more likely to need further surgery after ten years, compared to people with other implants.

He said the claimants’ case was that the ‘products supplied to them were defective... and that this caused them personal injury including revision surgery in each case’.

The trial, which began yesterday, could lead to hundreds more metal-on-metal claims against other manufacturers.

Bozena Michalowska Howells, the claimants’ lead solicitor, said outside court that they ‘believe that the Pinnacle device has failed to deliver on the level of safety they were entitled to expect.’

She added: ‘As a result of this failure, they have suffered pain and early revision surgery which we believe would have been avoided had they been implanted with a conventional hip product.’

A spokesman for DePuy said: ‘ The device is backed by a strong record of clinical data showing reduced pain and restored mobility for patients suffering from chronic hip pain. We are committed to the long-term defence of the allegations in this litigation.’

The case continues. ‘Failed to deliver on safety’