MoMs Hips a Grinding Dilemma for Hospitals, Doctors, FDA
During the two days, panel members heard a mind-boggling array of words and phrases to describe the damage to bone, tissue, and blood resulting from MoM devices:
Tribocorrosion, trunnions, fracture of resurfacing systems, edge wear, microseparation, pseudotumors and asceptic lymphocytic vasculiis-associated lesions, voltage effects, infections, post-operative nerve palsy, prosthesis loosening, implant breakage or fracture, femoral neck fractures and heterotopic ossification, loss of mobility and pain, and mechanically assisted corrosion, to name just a few.
Starting a decade ago, newer MoM devices were seen as a safer alternative to prostheses made of polyethylene or ceramic, which wore out faster, and which released particles that could accumulate in local tissue and erode the bone.
Metal devices, which would last longer, held a promise to solve that problem, because they were seen as more appropriate for younger people who wanted to remain active in their 60s and 70s and beyond without having to undergo a revision surgery.
- New G-Codes to Pay Doctors for Broad Array of Non-Face-to-Face Care
- CMS Sets 2014 Pay Rates for Hospital Outpatient and Physician Services
- States Rejecting Medicaid Expansion Forgo Billions in Federal Funds
- Douglas Hawthorne—A Chance to Do Something Big
- Telehealth Improves Patient Care in ICUs
- Why You Should Involve Patients in Nursing Handoffs
- Not-for-Profit Hospitals Find Opportunity Amid Uncertainty
- Substance Abuse Resurfaces Among Anesthesiologists in Training
- Hospital M&A Volume Up, Value Down in 3Q
- The 5 Biggest Healthcare Finance Trouble Spots