Stryker Tritanium Acetabular Cup (TAC) Lawsuit Filed Over Hip System Failure

According to allegations raised in a recently filed product liability lawsuit, problems with the Stryker Trident Tritanium Acetabular Cup hip replacement system caused Texas woman to experience complications, which ultimately resulted in the need for revision surgery after the hip system failed.

The complaint (PDF) was filed by Linda Kay Benton in the Superior Court of New Jersey for Bergen County on August 15, naming, Howmedica Osteonics Corporation, doing business as Stryker Orthopaedics, and a number of unnamed manufacturers, wholesalers, sellers, distributors and marketers, as defendants.

Benton indicates that she received the implant for as part of a left hip replacement in October 2014. However, she later began experiencing discomfort and, required revision surgery to have the implant removed in January 2018. During the removal, surgeons discovered that the acetabular liner and two screws within the cup had come loose.

Learn More About

Hip Replacements Lawsuits

Lawsuits are being reviewed for several different dangerous and defective hip replacement systems.

Learn More See If You Qualify For Compensation

The Stryker Tritanium Acetabular Cup was approved by the FDA in July 2008, and was fast-tracked through the agency’s controversial 510(k) approval system, meaning it only needed to be “substantially equivalent” to an existing implant for approval.

The lawsuit notes that there are more than 200 complaints about problems with the Struker Tritanium Acetabular Cup (TAC) in the FDA’s Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database, with more than 130 of those complaints involving reports of loosening or implant migration.

In addition, reports of these issues have been reported at orthopedic conferences for some time. Benton’s lawsuit claims it is clear Stryker knew about the problem but failed to address it or warn doctors or their patients about the risks.

“Sales Representatives of Defendant Stryker have attended numerous revision surgeries where the Tritanium Device was removed by surgeons due to loosening, and Defendant has taken the failed hip for analysis to assess why it was prematurely failing,” the lawsuit notes. “Defendants have been aware of the Tritanium Device’s dangerous propensity for early failure due to acetabular aseptic loosening for a significant period of time.”

The lawsuit notes that several studies have warned about potential problems with the implants as well.

In November 2018, Stryker agreed to settle hundreds of similar LFit V40 hip implant lawsuits filed in federal courts nationwide. A Stryker LFit v40 recall was issued in late 2016, following reports of taper lock problems, which may result in pain, inflammation, loss of mobility, disassociation and the need for risky revision surgery.

Several other manufacturers faced similar hip replacement failure lawsuits in recent years, claiming that the designs were unreasonably dangerous and prone to early failure. Similar allegations led to DePuy ASR hip lawsuitsDePuy Pinnacle hip lawsuits and other cases.

6 Comments

  • ReginaldNovember 12, 2024 at 4:25 pm

    Hip was never right hurt from the time of therapy to the time of revision went to surgeon who did the surgery because of the pain I was having.was told the X-rays were perfect and I’m just trying to sue.got a second opinion and was told my hip was far from perfect. He said the lines around the joint was a sign it was loosining and I would need revision surgery. The doc. Lied and said my hip X-rays[Show More]Hip was never right hurt from the time of therapy to the time of revision went to surgeon who did the surgery because of the pain I was having.was told the X-rays were perfect and I’m just trying to sue.got a second opinion and was told my hip was far from perfect. He said the lines around the joint was a sign it was loosining and I would need revision surgery. The doc. Lied and said my hip X-rays were perfect.the Stryker lift v 40/tritanium hip failed within months. If I didn’t get a second opinion I would never have known

  • ReginaldSeptember 24, 2022 at 7:48 pm

    Stryker accolade 2 and tritanium hip implanted may 2017 had revision surgery Feb.2021 hip came loose and migrated. Have a 6260 9 036 -5mm that was made in 2012.said part of recall but after2011

  • ReginaldSeptember 24, 2022 at 7:46 pm

    Stryker accolade 2 and tritanium hip implanted may 2017 had revision surgery Feb.2021 hip came loose and migrated. Have a 6260 9 036 -5mm that was made in 2012.said part of recall but after2011

  • ReginaldSeptember 24, 2022 at 7:40 pm

    Stryker accolade 2 and tritanium hip implanted may 2017 had revision surgery Feb.2021 hip came loose and migrated. Have a 6260 9 036 -5mm that was made in 2012.said part of recall but after2011

  • JudyJanuary 10, 2022 at 3:57 pm

    2017 Initial Stryker hip implant. May 2021 It was determined the implant was loose ( diagnostic x-ray) November 2021 Hip revision was performed and it was evident the implant never had any bone ingrowth.

  • MichaelJuly 22, 2021 at 9:13 pm

    I just had revision surgery 7/06/2021, for a Stryker Tritanium acetabula cup that, according to surgeon, was completely loose. Pain started 12/2019, 8 months after hip replacement surgery and issue was definitively diagnosed in June 2021. I have the cup that was removed.

Share Your Comments

I authorize the above comments be posted on this page*

Want your comments reviewed by a lawyer?

To have an attorney review your comments and contact you about a potential case, provide your contact information below. This will not be published.

NOTE: Providing information for review by an attorney does not form an attorney-client relationship.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

More Top Stories

Depo-Provera Lawsuit MDL Application Will Be Considered by JPML at Hearing on Jan. 30, 2025
Depo-Provera Lawsuit MDL Application Will Be Considered by JPML at Hearing on Jan. 30, 2025 (Posted 5 days ago)

With a growing number of women pursuing Depo-Provera brain tumor lawsuits throughout the federal court system, the U.S. JPML will decide whether to consolidate and centralize the claims before one judge for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.