Overview: The metal-on-metal hip industry is dealt another blow as Zimmer removes the Durom Acetabular Component from the shelves in Australia. As with other all-metal hip replacements, the device was pulled following reports of high revision rates.
- Zimmer pulled the Durom cup from the Australian market due to high revision rates
- According to Australian regulators, the Durom cup is associated with a 9.6 % rate of revision at 7 years in hip resurfacing and 6.8 % at 5 years when used in total hip replacement
- The removal of the device only supports the notion that metal-on-metal implants as class are defective and expose patients to a risk of early failure and related injuries
Product: Durom Acetabular Component
Manufacturer: Zimmer Holdings
Side Effects & Complications
- High failure rate
- Necrosis (tissue death)
- Increased levels of cobalt and chromium ions
- Pain at the implant, sometimes spreading to the groin and back
- Osteolysis (bone loss)
- Fluid collections/solid masses around the hip joint
Durom Cup Pulled from Australian Market
Zimmer has canceled its Durom Acetabular Component from the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods. Mass Device reports that the implant was pulled amidst reports that, compared to similar devices, it was failing prematurely in a large number of patients. According to data from the Australian National Joint Replacement Registry, the Durom cup was associated with a 9.6% revision rate after 7 years when used in hip resurfacing surgery and a rate of 6.8% at 5 years when used in total hip replacement. Comparatively, similar devices showed a revision rate of 6.1% at 7 years for resurfacing and 3.6% at 5 years for total hip replacement.
Metal-on-Metal Hip Implant Lawsuits
Zimmer is one of many manufacturers that been ensnared by the metal-on-metal hip controversy. The issue at hand appears to be the release of small metal particles, particularly cobalt and chromium ions, through wear of the implant. Parker Waichman senior litigation counsel Daniel Burke told Mass Device last month that metal-on-metal hip implant lawsuits were more focused on targeting the safety concerns associated with the entire class of devices rather than pinpointing a particular brand.