FDA probing safety of metal-on-metal hip implants

June 27, 2012 By Steven Reinberg, HealthDay Reporter
FDA probing safety of metal-on-metal hip implants
2-day meeting will assess how patients with the devices should be monitored.

(HealthDay) -- While thousands of Americans have benefited from hip replacements over the years, problems with metal-on-metal implants can lead to troubles requiring surgery to replace defective devices, experts say.

Specifically, experts say, tiny fragments of metal can shear off from these joints, causing chronic pain or infection and raising levels of metals in the bloodstream. Experts estimate that more than 500,000 Americans have received a metal-on-metal hip joint, mostly between 2003 and 2010.

Worry over the failure rate of the , and the speed at which they were initially approved for the U.S. market, has led to a special two-day session, beginning Wednesday, by experts at the U.S. .

"Data from recent studies and from FDA's own review show some patients experiencing complications, including the need for additional surgeries, which could be attributed to metal-on-metal hip implant devices," said FDA spokeswoman Michelle Bolek.

Since 1999, almost 17,000 problems with these devices have been reported to the FDA. Of these, more than 12,000 were reported last year alone.

According to the agency, the problems with metal-on-metal implants are about the same as those seen with and ceramic implants, except for the specific risks caused by the metal itself.

But others say that when it comes to complications, metal-on-metal implants are in a class of their own. Writing earlier this month in the , Dr. Joshua Rising of the Pew Charitable Trusts, and colleagues said that "there is now compelling evidence that these implants fail at a higher rate than hip prostheses made of other materials; indeed, one type of metal-on-metal hip has a failure rate of nearly 50 percent at 6 years."

Responding to these concerns, the FDA panel is considering the risks and benefits of metal-on-metal implants and what might be needed to monitor the health of patients who have them.

Of the estimated 400,000 hip replacements done in the United States each year, 27 percent involve metal-on-metal devices, according to the FDA.

Critics, including an independent panel of experts at the Institute of Medicine, have noted that metal-on-metal implants may have been approved too quickly under the FDA's "fast-track" program for medical devices.

Responding to concerns, in May 2011 the FDA ordered manufacturers to carry out "post-market" studies, tracking the safety of metal-on-metal hip implants in recipients. But in the NEJM article, Rising and colleagues noted that most of these studies have yet to begin and their first results will take years to arrive.

The FDA's Bolek made it clear that the advisory panel meeting is not a regulatory meeting and is not intended to look at the process that brought the devices to the market, or to deal with any planned or current post-marketing studies.

Metal-on-metal devices have already been recalled twice. In 2008, a device from manufacturer Zimmer, the Durom Acetabular Component, was recalled because instructions were not clear.

And in 2010 a device from DePuy Orthopaedics Inc. was recalled because more patients than expected had to have new surgeries, according to the FDA.

Earlier this month, a device called the R3 Acetabular System from Smith & Nephew was taken off the market because the company said it was "not satisfied with the clinical results of this component."

In Europe these concerns have led to calls to ban metal-on-metal hip replacement devices. Writing in March in the journal The Lancet, British researchers concluded that "metal-on-metal stemmed articulations give poor implant survival compared with other options and should not be implanted." Metal-on-metal implants had a five-year failure rate of more than 6 percent, three times higher that seen with ceramic or plastic joints.

Banning metal-on-metal joints isn't an option being considered by the FDA panel at this time.

"During the panel meeting, FDA will discuss failure rates and modes for these devices, as well as any local and systemic complications that could result from metal debris and metal ion levels in the from the device," Bolek said.

The panel will also discuss metal ion testing and soft tissue imaging, tools that can potentially be used in the clinical management of patients who have these devices, Bolek said.

"We will also review specific risk factors for specific patient populations and considerations for post-implant follow-up," she added.

Mindy Tinsley is a spokeswoman for metal implant maker DePuy Orthopaedics Inc., which is owned by Johnson & Johnson. She said that "DePuy believes that no single bearing surface meets the needs of all patients, and metal-on-metal implants provide the potential benefit of greater function and a lower risk of dislocation for some patients."

Tinsley also said that all metal-on-metal implants are not alike and they should not be grouped together if problems arise.

One orthopedic expert agreed. Dr. Joshua Jacobs, first vice president of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, said that "metal-on-metal devices are not all the same. You have to go down to the individual product to fully understand the result. When you lump metal-on-metal together you miss a lot of important differences."

According to Jacobs, who is chairman of the department of orthopaedic surgery at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago, the advantages of metal-on-metal implants are that there is typically less wear on the joint, leading to less loosening and less bone loss over time.

In addition, he said, metal allows for a thinner, larger socket and head, which makes it less likely the hip will dislocate after surgery, which is a common failure of other types of .

Still, given the problems with these devices, Jacobs agrees that patients need to be monitored.

"We are trying to learn the optimal way of monitoring patients with metal-on-metal implants, so we can understand when it is appropriate to intervene," he said. "Right now we are amassing clinical data to understand that better."

Explore further: New hip implants no better than traditional implants

More information: For more on hip replacement, visit the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.


Related Stories

New hip implants no better than traditional implants

November 30, 2011
New hip implants appear to have no advantage over traditional implants, suggests a review of the evidence published in the British Medical Journal today.

UK says metal hip replacements more troublesome

September 16, 2011
(AP) -- People who get metal hip replacements are more likely to need a replacement compared to those who get a traditional plastic one, according to a new report from a large British registry.

Latest data confirms high failure rates for metal-on-metal hip replacements

March 12, 2012
Ten days after the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) announced that patients who have received stemmed metal-on-metal (MOM) hip replacements will need annual check-ups, The Lancet publishes "unequivocal ...

Lifelong checks for metal hip implant patients

March 1, 2012
The UK government's health regulator has advised new checks for patients who have undergone large head metal-on-metal hip replacements, following a major investigation by Newcastle University engineers.

Skin tests catch metal sensitivity before joint replacement

February 24, 2012
(HealthDay) -- Testing patients for metal hypersensitivity before they receive joint or bone implants helps identify those at increased risk for complications due to metal hypersensitivity, a new study shows.

Metal-on-metal hip replacement patients at no more risk of developing cancer

April 3, 2012
Patients who have had metal-on-metal hip replacements are no more likely to develop cancer in the first seven years after surgery than the general population, although a longer-term study is required, a study published in ...

Recommended for you

Exploring the potential of human echolocation

June 25, 2017
People who are visually impaired will often use a cane to feel out their surroundings. With training and practice, people can learn to use the pitch, loudness and timbre of echoes from the cane or other sounds to navigate ...

Team eradicates hepatitis C in 10 patients following lifesaving transplants from infected donors

April 30, 2017
Ten patients at Penn Medicine have been cured of the Hepatitis C virus (HCV) following lifesaving kidney transplants from deceased donors who were infected with the disease. The findings point to new strategies for increasing ...

'bench to bedside to bench': Scientists call for closer basic-clinical collaborations

March 24, 2017
In the era of genome sequencing, it's time to update the old "bench-to-bedside" shorthand for how basic research discoveries inform clinical practice, researchers from The Jackson Laboratory (JAX), National Human Genome Research ...

The ethics of tracking athletes' biometric data

January 18, 2017
(Medical Xpress)—Whether it is a FitBit or a heart rate monitor, biometric technologies have become household devices. Professional sports leagues use some of the most technologically advanced biodata tracking systems to ...

Financial ties between researchers and drug industry linked to positive trial results

January 18, 2017
Financial ties between researchers and companies that make the drugs they are studying are independently associated with positive trial results, suggesting bias in the evidence base, concludes a study published by The BMJ ...

Best of Last Year – The top Medical Xpress articles of 2016

December 23, 2016
(Medical Xpress)—It was a big year for research involving overall health issues, starting with a team led by researchers at the UNC School of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health who unearthed more evidence that ...

0 comments

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.