January 2014

We are no longer accepting cases regarding these products.  Due to a terrible Supreme Court ruling, consumers injured by this product are no longer permitted to sue the manufacturers of this device.  We wish we could help, but the Supreme Court has taken the rights of citizens away to protect the profits of medical device manufacturers.  For more information, please read the following New York Times article entitled “Medical Device Ruling Redraws Lines on Lawsuits.

In 2005, a study was published in Obesity Surgery titled “Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding versus open vertical banded gastroplasty: a prospective randomized trial.” that compared the efficacy and safety of two gastric banding techniques: vertical and laparoscopic adjustable.  For data, this study followed 100 patients (50 in each group) over several years.

While average length of stay in the hospital was significantly shorter in the laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LGAB) group than in the vertical banded gastroplasty (VBG) group, and three LGAB patients were converted to gastric bypass procedures, the authors write that “Directly after VBG, 3 patients needed relaparotomies due to leakage, of which one (2%) died.”

Vertical banded gastroplasty was found to be more effective in weight loss, but more patients using LGAB required revisional surgery than did VBG patients (18 vs. 20).  The authors write “2 years after LAGB, 20 patients needed reoperation for pouch dilation/slippage (n=12), band leakage (n=2), band erosion (n=2) and access-port problems (n=4). In the VBG group, 18 patients needed revisional surgery due to staple-line disruption (n=15), narrow outlet (n=2) or insufficient weight loss (n=1). Furthermore, 8 VBG patients developed an incisional hernia.”

Sadly, the manufacturer of the LAP-BAND (a common LAGB system), Allergan, reports drastically lower rates of complications and reoperations in its LAP-BAND Warning Label.

 

Our Allergan LAP-BAND Lawsuit Information page is a great place to start if you have any questions about the Allergan LAP-BAND.

In 2005, a team of Polish researchers published a study titled “Prolactin secretion disturbances in schizophrenic patients treated with 2nd generation antipsychotics–risperidone and olanzapine” in Psychiatria Polska that aimed to further elucidate the connection between the use of second-generation antipsychotics and elevation of prolactin.  Prolactin is a hormone in the body responsible for breast development and milk production, and elevation of prolactin – a condition called hyperprolactinemia – can lead to gynecomastia, the development of breasts in men.

As such, this team “[compared] the prevalence of hyperprolactinemia and its clinical symptoms in three groups: (1) patients with schizophrenia treated with risperidone, (2) those treated with olanzapine and (3) the control group.”  In all, 60 schizophrenic patients were studied (26 treated with Risperdal, 34 treated with Zyprexa), and the prolactin levels in these patients were compared to 38 healthy, non-medicated patients.

Researchers found that “Hyperprolactinemia was established in 92.3% patients treated with risperidone and in 76.5% patients treated with olanzapine and in 2.6% subjects of the control group”, drawing a clear connection between risperidone (Risperdal) use and hyperprolactinemia, and between Zyprexa use and hyperprolactinemia.

Sadly, the manufacturer of Risperdal (Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) has failed time and again to warn users of the risk for hyperprolactinemia and gynecomastia associated with Risperdal use.  As a result, a number of Risperdal lawsuits are currently being filed.  If you or a loved one used Risperdal and suffered gynecomastia as a result, you too may be entitled to significant financial compensation for your undue injury and suffering.  For a free, no-obligation case consultation, contact our team of Risperdal lawyers at the information provided below.  We have the compassion, resources, and skills required to win the justice you deserve.

(855) 452 – 5529

justinian@dangerousdrugs.us

Our Risperdal Lawsuit Information page is a great place to start if you have any questions about Risperdal.

A 2006 piece published in Neuroendocrinology Letters by M. Kopecek et al. titled “Low-dose risperidone augmentation of antidepressants or anxiolytics is associated with hyperprolactinemia.” states “Risperidone in antipsychotic doses induces hyperprolactinemia” and aims to “verify whether the same is true for low doses of risperidone (0.5-2 mg per day) added to antidepressants or anxiolytics.”  That is, the study acknowledges that Risperdal (risperidone) is known to raise levels of prolactin – the hormone responsible for breast development and milk productions – and wanted to test if adding even a very small amount of the drug to a patient’s normal prescription of another antipsychotic would have the same effect.  The condition characterized by dramatically-elevated prolactin levels is called “hyperprolactinemia”.

Admittedly, this was a small study, including only 12 patients who used risperidone “as an augmentation treatment to antidepressants (n=8), anxiolytics (n=6) and mood stabilizers (n=2)”.  However, the results were clear: “11 of 12 patients had hyperprolactinemia.”

Researchers continue, stating a “Significant correlation between risperidone daily dose and plasma prolactin level … was detected” and “Two women suffered from galactorrhea and one from amenorrhea.” (hyperlinks added)

As such, researchers concluded that “Even low doses of risperidone used as an augmentation to antidepressants or benzodiazepines are associated with hyperprolactinemia and can induce endocrinological side effects”, stating that “The co-medication of antidepressants and benzodiazepines can potentially increase intensity of prolactinemia.”

Due to the fact that the manufacturer of Risperdal (risperidone) has failed time and again to adequately warn users of the risk for hyperprolactinemia and potential gynecomastia associated with Risperdal use, a number of Risperdal lawsuits have been filed.  If you or a loved one used Risperdal and suffered these or other complications as a result, you too may be entitled to significant financial compensation for you undue injury and suffering.  For a free, no-obligation case consultation, contact our team of Risperdal lawyers at the information provided below.  We have the compassion, resources, and skills required to win the justice you deserve.  Call today and see how we can help.

(855) 452 – 5529

justinian@dangerousdrugs.us

Our Risperdal Lawsuit Information page is a great place to start if you have any questions about Risperdal.

In 2005, a team of researchers led by JA Hellings published a report titled “Risperidone-induced prolactin elevation in a prospective study of children, adolescents, and adults with mental retardation and pervasive developmental disorders.” that aimed to determine if Risperdal (risperidone) caused elevated prolactin levels in females more than males.  Elevated prolactin levels (hyperprolactinemia) may result in a number of side effects including gynecomastia and galactorrhea.

The authors write “In this relatively long-term study of risperidone efficacy and safety for aggression and self-injury in children, adolescents, and adults with [mental retardation] and [pervasive developmental disorders], serum prolactin was measured in a 21-subject subset during the course of a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.”

Results showed that prolactin levels increased in children and adolescents by more than double after taking Risperdal, and prolactin levels increased in adults about eight-fold.  It was indeed determined that females suffered greater prolactin elevation than men.

Sadly, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the company that makes Risperdal, has failed time and again to clearly warn its users that Risperdal use is associated with gynecomastia and other serious complications.  As a result, a number of Risperdal lawsuits are currently being filed.

If you or a loved one used Risperdal and suffered gynecomastia or another complication as a result, you too may be entitled to significant financial compensation.  For a free, no-obligation case consultation, contact our team of Risperdal lawyers at the information provided below.  We have the compassion, experience, and resources required to win the justice you deserve.  Call today and see how we can help.

(855) 452 – 5529

justinian@dangerousdrugs.us

Our Risperdal Lawsuit Information page is a great place to start if you have any questions about Risperdal.

In a 2012 study appearing in Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research titled “Pseudotumors are common in well-positioned low-wearing metal-on-metal hips.”, AK Matthies et al. write “Pseudotumors are sterile inflammatory lesions found in the soft tissues surrounding metal-on-metal (MOM) and metal-on-polyethylene hip arthroplasties. In patients with MOM hip arthroplasties, pseudotumors are thought to represent an adverse reaction to metal wear debris. However, the pathogenesis of these lesions remains unclear. Currently, there is inconsistent evidence regarding the influence of adverse cup position and increased wear in the formation of pseudotumors.”

As such, this team set out to determine “whether pseudotumor formation was associated with (1) adverse cup position, (2) raised metal ion levels, and (3) increased wear rates of the retrieved components.”

Studying 105 patients who used metal-on-metal hip replacement, the team compared “acetabular orientation, metal ion levels before revision, and component wear rates between patients with (n = 72) and without (n = 33) pseudotumors, according to findings on metal artifact reduction sequence MRI.”

After statistical analysis, Matthies et al. (2012) found that “The proportion of patients demonstrating evidence of a pseudotumor in well-positioned hips was similar to those with adverse cup positions (67% and 66%, respectively).”

Concluding that “Pseudotumors were not associated with increased wear or metal ion levels, suggesting patient susceptibility is likely to be more important,” this paper can be used in a metal-on-metal hip replacement lawsuit to demonstrate to court that the manufacturers of these devices knew, or should have known, of the dangers associated with metal-on-metal hips.

One such company is DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., the manufacturer of the ASR and ASR XL hip replacements recalled in 2010.  As such, a number of DePuy ASR lawsuits have been filed.  If you or a loved one used a DePuy ASR and suffered premature device failure, pseudotumors, or another ASR complication, you too may be entitled to significant financial compensation.  For a free, no-obligation case consultation, contact our team of ASR lawyers at the information provided below.  We have the experience, resources, and skills required to win the justice you deserve.  Call today and see how we can help.

(855)  452 – 5529

justinian@dangerousdrugs.us

Our DePuy ASR™ / ASR™ XL Hip Replacement Lawsuit Information page is a great place to start if you have any questions about DePuy ASR metal-on-metal hip replacements.

A 2010 article published in Journal of Orthopaedic Research by YM Kwon et al. titled “Lymphocyte proliferation responses in patients with pseudotumors following metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty.” studied “the incidence and level of metal-induced systemic hypersensitivity in patients” who underwent metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty (MoHRA), “both with and without pseudotumor by measuring lymphocyte proliferation responses to metals.”

The study including 92 patients in all, researchers found that “A higher incidence and level of enhanced lymphocyte reactivity only to [the metal nickel] was found in patients with MoMHRA compared to the patients without MoM implants, reflecting exposure and immune reactivity.”

Interestingly, these researchers found that ion levels of cobalt, chromium, and nickel did not differ much between patients with pseudotumors and those without, suggesting that “systemic hypersensitivity type IV reactions, as measured by lymphocyte proliferation response to these metals, may not be the dominant biological reaction involved in the occurrence of the soft tissue pseudotumors.”

Unfortunately, DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., the manufacturer of the DePuy ASR and DePuy ASR XL hip replacement systems, has failed time and again to warn users of the risks associated with the DePuy ASR systems.  As a result of this, a number of DePuy ASR lawsuits have been filed.

If you or a loved one used a DePuy ASR hip replacement and suffered premature device failure or another ASR complication as a result, you too may be entitled to significant financial compensation.  For a free, no-obligation case consultation, contact our team of DePuy ASR hip replacement lawyers at the information provided below.  We have the compassion, resources, and experience required to win the justice you deserve.  Call today and see how we can help.

(855)  452 – 5529

justinian@dangerousdrugs.us

Our DePuy ASR™ / ASR™ XL Hip Replacement Lawsuit Information page is a great place to start if you have any questions about DePuy ASR metal-on-metal hip replacements.

In 2013, a paper published in Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research titled “The natural history of inflammatory pseudotumors in asymptomatic patients after metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty.” by SA Almousa et al. provides background for itself, stating in part “Although pseudotumors have been reported in 32% of asymptomatic metal-on-metal hips, the natural history of asymptomatic pseudotumors is unknown.”  As such, the stated purpose of this study was “to assess changes over time in asymptomatic pseudotumors and the effect of revision on pseudotumor mass.”

“After the detection of 15 pseudotumors and five isolated fluid collections in a cohort of 20 asymptomatic patients (13 metal-on-metal, three metal-on-polyethylene, and four hip resurfacings)”, ultrasound was used at an average of about two years follow-up to monitor the growth of the pseudotumors.

Results showed that “Among the 15 nonrevised patients, pseudotumors increased in size in six (four solid and two cystic) of 10 patients, three of which had clinically important increases”.  Three pseudotumors “disappeared completely”, some others reduced in size.  “All revision patients had a reduction of chromium … and cobalt ions … Of five isolated fluid collections, four completely disappeared (two metal-on-metal and two metal-on-polyethylene) and one (metal-on-metal) increased from 26 cm(3) to 136 cm(3).”  That is, once metal-on-metal hips were replaced, metal ion levels were reduced.

Sadly, elevated metal ion levels and associated pseudotumors were not adequately warned for by DePuy Orthopaedics, the manufacturer of the recalled ASR and ASR XL hip replacement systems.  As a result, a number of DePuy ASR hip replacement lawsuits have been filed.  If you or a loved one has used a DePuy ASR hip replacement and suffered these or other complications as a result, including premature device failure, you too may be entitled to significant financial compensation.

For a free, no-obligation case consultation, contact our team of DePuy ASR lawyers at the information provided below.  We have the skills, resources, and experience required to win the compensation you deserve.

(855)  452 – 5529

justinian@dangerousdrugs.us

Our DePuy ASR™ / ASR™ XL Hip Replacement Lawsuit Information page is a great place to start if you have any questions about DePuy ASR metal-on-metal hip replacements.

An article appearing in the May, 2013 edition of Orthopedics titled “Prevalence of adverse reactions to metal debris following metal-on-metal THA.” by M. Hasegawa et al. lives up to its title and aimed to “determine the prevalence of adverse reactions to metal debris (ARMD) following large-diameter metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty.”

In recent years, a number of articles have been published connecting the use of metal-on-metal hip replacements and the presence of pseudotumors.  These authors “examined the potential for using magnetic resonance imaging to screen for pseudotumors in 108 hips 2 years postoperatively” and “Serum cobalt and chromium concentrations were measured in 80 hips that underwent unilateral total hip arthroplasty.”

With MRI, Hasegawa et al (2013) found “9 patients (10 hips, 9%). Five of these 10 hips were symptomatic and underwent revision surgery. Two other patients underwent revision surgery due to symptomatic cup loosening” with evidence of pseudotumors.  In all, “Ten patients (12 hips)” had adverse reactions to metal debris.

Doctors found “Serum cobalt and chromium concentrations were significantly higher in hips with ARMD than hips without ARMD.”  So understandably, the authors concluded that “Elevated metal ion levels suggest that ARMD is associated with increased metal wear” and “Magnetic resonance imaging provides sensitive screening for pseudotumors following metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty.”

Due to the fact that manufacturers of metal-on-metal hip replacements such as DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. (manufacturer of the recalled ASR and ASR XL hip replacements) have failed time and again to notify users of these risks associated with their devices, a number of DePuy ASR lawsuits have been filed.  If you or a loved one has used an ASR hip replacement and suffered premature ASR failure or other complications such as those described above, you too may be entitled to significant financial compensation.

For a free, no-obligation case consultation, contact our team of DePuy ASR lawyers at the information provided below.  We have the compassion, resources, and experience required to win the justice you deserve.

(855)  452 – 5529

justinian@dangerousdrugs.us

Our DePuy ASR™ / ASR™ XL Hip Replacement Lawsuit Information page is a great place to start if you have any questions about DePuy ASR metal-on-metal hip replacements.

A recent article from Slate.com by Matthew Yglesias provides an interesting overview of problems and solutions in health care reform.

Published Friday January 24th 2014, the report begins by citing a recent Gallup poll demonstrating a recent and dramatic decline in the number of Americans without health insurance.  Likely the result of the further implementation of the Affordable Care Act, Yglesias purports “that progress is likely to continue.”

With the increasing number of Americans receiving health insurance, we must also be mindful of the quality of that care received.  Yglesias cites a few positive reforms mandated by ACA, “designed to restrain aggregate health care spending, most notably by reforming the way Medicare pays medical providers.”  Though, the author notes that “health care spending has been slowing down in recent years, and there’s some evidence that Obamacare deserves the credit”, but “that slowdown was happening before the major expansion of insurance coverage kicked in.”

This is good news either way, but it doesn’t speak to whether the current healthcare system is as yet capable of handling millions of new, recently-insured patients.  Yglesias writes “The Affordable Care Act relies on Medicaid expansion to cover many new people because Medicaid is one of the cheapest ways to deliver health insurance. But the main reason it’s so cheap is that its payments to health care providers are relatively stingy. Since the payments are stingy, some providers refuse to treat Medicaid patients. Since Obamacare gives non-Medicaid insurance to many currently uninsured people, providers may actually find it easier than ever to fill their schedules with high-paying non-Medicaid customers—even at a time when Medicaid expansion means we need more providers.”

Next, Yglesias discusses the role of nurse practitioners in the healthcare system.  Currently, a number of states – the author cites Maryland, Rhode Island, Idaho, and Utah – “allow nurse practitioners to diagnose and treat a variety of ailments without a doctor’s involvement.”  And though larger states such as New York, Florida, California, and Texas do not, “Evidence suggests that health outcomes are no worse for patients treated by independent nurse practitioners.”  If more states allow nurses to work with increased autonomy, more patients would be able to be treated, and for less cost.  Further, the ability for states to produce, as it were, more healthcare professionals would rise dramatically, as, simply put, it is “easier to qualify as a nurse practitioner than as an M.D.”

Another issue noted to consider is the current trend for hospital mergers.  While in some cases justified, hospital mergers may create diminished competition leading to price gouging, even if only at the local level. “Federal antitrust regulators haven’t traditionally had much to say about the health care industry, but that needs to change.”

And finally, Yglesias advocates for an increased supply of doctors.  “American doctors are paid more than doctors in almost any other country, and yet we have fewer doctors per capita.”  Among the avenues for solution cited are relaxed immigration policies for foreign physicians, particularly general practitioners, and a call to train more doctors domestically. “Medical schools have gotten steadily more selective over the past generation rather than expanding with the size of the population, and Congress has refused to pony up the money to finance more residencies.”

Though passing legislation for any of these improvements will likely be difficult, a positive aspect to all of them is a lack of inherent political divide, as was the case with the Affordable Care Act.  Hopefully moving forward our country will create the capacity to treat all our nation’s sick, whatever their socioeconomic background.

We are no longer accepting cases regarding these products.  Due to a terrible Supreme Court ruling, consumers injured by this product are no longer permitted to sue the manufacturers of this device.  We wish we could help, but the Supreme Court has taken the rights of citizens away to protect the profits of medical device manufacturers.  For more information, please read the following New York Times article entitled “Medical Device Ruling Redraws Lines on Lawsuits.

In a 2011 article published in Surgical Endoscopy titled “Analysis of poor outcomes after laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding.”, J. Kasza et al. reviewed the laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding “experience at an urban academic center in terms of complications, reoperative rates, and comorbidities,” studying 130 female patients.

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding is a surgical process by which an adjustable plastic band is placed around the stomach, thus limiting the size of the stomach and causing patients to feel full after having consumed less food.

Researchers write that the average percent excess weight loss “was 20% ± 14% at 6 months …, 26% ± 16% at 12 months …, 30% ± 20% at 18 months …, and 34% ± 23% at 24 months”.  Other studies showing significantly more weight loss with Lap-Band, this research illustrates moderate efficacy of the system.

Concerning complications, the Kasza et al. (2011) team found “Complications occurred for 8% of the patients (n = 15) including port flipping, stoma obstruction, tube disconnection, port infections, dysphagia, and band slippage” and state “Overall, 16.7% of the patients (n = 24) required reoperation.”

Due to the fact that the LAP-BAND Warning Label suggests a significantly lower portion of patients are expected to face complications or require reoperation, a number of LAP-BAND lawsuits are currently being filed.

 

Our Allergan LAP-BAND Lawsuit Information page is a great place to start if you have any questions about the Allergan LAP-BAND.