Part 5
TOXIC
Finally, this section is about the toxicity of the Cobalt-Chromium alloy that was used in Ultamet, and many other metal-on-metal prostheses.
It includes some of the large amount of evidence about Cobalt/Chromium toxicity that was available long before Ultamet was taken off the market in 2013.
But first, here's a sample of what Mrs Justice Andrews wrote about toxicity in her verdict:
Para. 230
'Media reporting became even more sensationalist in the wake of the withdrawal of the ASR resurfacing device. Again, no attempt was made to distinguish between resurfacing implants and those used for total hip arthroplasties. Phrases such as “toxic hip implants” were used in the tabloid press, and it was suggested in some articles that there were systemic problems, and that metal was poisoning the bodies of patients. Typically, the absence of any scientific research to support the alarmist contentions in the articles or reports would be mentioned, if at all, in the last paragraph. Television news and websites also carried stories about the possible dangers of metal on metal hip replacements, including a joint investigation by Newsnight and the British Medical Journal which referred to “poorly regulated and potentially dangerous” hip devices, and suggested that wear debris might be carcinogenic.'
'Media reporting became even more sensationalist in the wake of the withdrawal of the ASR resurfacing device. Again, no attempt was made to distinguish between resurfacing implants and those used for total hip arthroplasties. Phrases such as “toxic hip implants” were used in the tabloid press, and it was suggested in some articles that there were systemic problems, and that metal was poisoning the bodies of patients. Typically, the absence of any scientific research to support the alarmist contentions in the articles or reports would be mentioned, if at all, in the last paragraph. Television news and websites also carried stories about the possible dangers of metal on metal hip replacements, including a joint investigation by Newsnight and the British Medical Journal which referred to “poorly regulated and potentially dangerous” hip devices, and suggested that wear debris might be carcinogenic.'
Does this sound impartial?
They were, and are, "toxic hip implants" … see > Systemic Cobalt Toxicity
And "tabloid press" ?
1. NHS
2. The Independant
3. The Guardian
4. The Telegraph
DePuy Pinnacle Ultamet certainly were “poorly regulated ” hip devices because they were untested, and I can confirm from personal experience that they were DEFINITELY "dangerous". See my surgery report, below.
There are many questionable statements in the verdict.
If anyone opens the verdict and searches for the word toxic, they will find that a huge amount of effort has gone into 'proving' that everything was ok with the Pinnacle Cobalt/Chromium hip, and that the Plaintiffs were a bit silly.
It reads like a sort of strange biology lesson from a lawyer.
For example:
- 53. One feature of the adaptive response may be an aggregation of lymphocytes around small vessels in periprosthetic tissues (“perivascular cuffing”). Cuffing is not specific to the type IV hypersensitivity reaction or to MoM bearings, but where there is a type IV hypersensitivity reaction to metal debris, the lymphoid response may be far more pronounced.
And, what does this contribute to world knowledge:
- 50. Based on scientific research that has been carried out to date, both these experts took the view that the amount of metal debris generated by a normally-functioning MoM hip prosthesis was unlikely to cause ARMD unless the patient suffered a hypersensitive reaction. However, they accepted that more research needs to be carried out before it can be reliably established whether their view is correct.
I really wish that I understood why the verdict is, as it is.