Skip to main content

Metal on Metal Hip Replacements: A Tragic Failure of the FDA Regulatory Process


Hip replacements are a miracle of modern medicine.  They restore mobility to persons with disabling hip arthritis and free them from often severe pain.  While hip replacements are major surgery, especially in the generally older patients who require them, the success rate is high.  Hip replacements are remarkably durable, still working without the need for revision in the vast majority of patients a decade or longer after surgery.

Standard devices for hip replacements use a metal ball that fits into a plastic socket.  These devices have worked well for many years.

But then a new device came along--a metal ball fitting into a metal socket.  The DePuy "metal on metal" hip replacement was supposed to be the newest and greatest thing--more durable and allowing patients a more active life style.  Thousands of patients received the metal on metal hip implant instead of the standard hip replacement.

Unfortunately, the results were catastrophic.  These metal on metal hip replacements have failed at a frighteningly high rate, requiring revision surgery at least 4 times as often standard hip replacements.  The public health disaster caused by this device has been nicely chronicled in a series of NY Times articles by Barry Meier.

But here is the real shocker and outrage of this episode:  Did you know that the metal and metal hip replacement was never shown to be safe and effective?

Is it really possible that a new hip replacement device could be used in thousands and thousands of patients with little proof that it is safe?  Even when the standard device has a proven track record?  Don't we have the FDA to protect us from stuff like this?  Unfortunately, yes, this was totally possible, and no, the FDA did not protect us.

In an excellent perspective in the New England Journal of Medicine, Brent Ardaugh, Stephen Graves, and Rita Redberg describe what happened.  An obscure FDA loophole, known as the 510K process allowed the metal and metal hip replacement to be used in patients without proving it was safe.  The 510K process allows products to be approved that are believed to be of "substantial equivalence" to already approved devices.  But the evaluation of substantial equivalence is deeply flawed.  The authors note that device makers can show substantial equivalence to devices that have never been proven safe--or no longer even on the market because of poor clinical performance.

The substantial equivalence evaluation for the metal on metal hip device sounds particularly scary.  Various components of this device were shown to be substantially equivalent to to various components of other devices.  But the device maker never had to prove that all the components of the metal on metal hip worked together.  One wonders how many patients would have agreed to have the metal on metal hip if they knew how it was approved and were aware that it was never proven to be safe.

The metal on metal hip replacement was a totally man made and preventable public health disaster that has caused great suffering.   The FDA needs to close the 510K loophole and prevent similar disasters.

And we need a change in medical culture that is not so quick to believe that the newest medical gizmo is better and demands a high level of proof before new devices and procedures are widely used.

by: Ken Covinsky

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Future of Palliative Care: A Podcast with Diane Meier

There are few names more closely associated with palliative care than Diane Meier.  She is an international leader of palliative care, a MacArthur "genius" awardee, and amongst many other leadership roles, the CEO of the Center to Advance Palliative Care (CAPC).  We were lucky enough to snag Diane for our podcast to talk about everything we always wanted to ask her, including:
What keeps her up at night?Does palliative care need a national strategy and if so why and what would it look like?The history of CAPC and the leadership centersAdvice that she has for graduating fellows who want to continue to move palliative care forward as they start their new careersWhat she imagines palliative care will look like in 10 or 15 years?What is the biggest threat facing palliative care? So take a listen and if you want to dive a little deeper, here are two articles that we discussed during the podcast:
A National Strategy For Palliative Care. Health Affairs 2017Palliative Care Leadership…

Elderhood: Podcast with Louise Aronson

In this week's podcast we talk with Louise Aronson MD, MFA, Professor of Geriatrics at UCSF about her new book Elderhood, available for purchase now for delivery on the release date June 11th.

We are one of the first to interview Louise, as she has interviews scheduled with other lesser media outlets to follow (CBS This Morning and Fresh Air with Terry...somebody).

This book is tremendously rich, covering a history of aging/geriatrics, Louise's own journey as a geriatrician facing burnout, aging and death of family of Louise's members, insightful stories of patients, and more.

We focus therefore on the 3 main things we think our listeners and readers will be interested in.

First - why the word "Elder" and "Elderhood" when JAGS/AGS and others recently decided that the preferred terminology was "older adult"?

Second - Robert Butler coined the term ageism in 1969 - where do we see ageism in contemporary writing/thinking?  We focus on Louise's…

Psychedelics: Podcast with Ira Byock

In this week's podcast, we talk with Dr. Ira Byock, a leading palliative care physician, author, and public advocate for improving care through the end of life.

Ira Byock wrote a provocative and compelling paper in the Journal of Pain and Symptom Management titled, "Taking Psychedelics Seriously."

In this podcast we challenge Ira Byock about the use of psychedelics for patients with serious and life-limiting illness.   Guest host Josh Biddle (UCSF Palliative care fellow) asks, "Should clinicians who prescribe psychedelics try them first to understand what their patient's are going through?" The answer is "yes" -- read or listen on for more!

While you're reading, I'll just go over and lick this toad.

-@AlexSmithMD





You can also find us on Youtube!



Listen to GeriPal Podcasts on:
iTunes Google Play MusicSoundcloudStitcher
Transcript
Eric: Welcome to the GeriPal Podcast. This is Eric Widera.

Alex: This is Alex Smith.

Eric: Alex, I spy someone in our …