LinkedInXFacebook
Subscribe
Orthopedics This Week
  • My Feed
  • |Posts
  • |Events
  • |MSK Innovations
  • |Power Rankings
  • |Masterclasses
  • |Technology Awards
  • Press Releases
  • |Advertising
  • |Job Board
  • Spine
  • ◆Joints
  • ◆Upper Extremities
  • ◆Foot & Ankle
  • ◆Sports Medicine
  • ◆Pain Mgmt
  • ◆Trauma
  • ◆Biologics
  • ◆Technology
  • ◆People
  • ◆Company News
  • ◆Legal & Regulatory
Home/Large Joints and Extremities/Biomet UK Withdraws Flawed Hip Shell
Large Joints and Extremities

Biomet UK Withdraws Flawed Hip Shell

August 15, 2014 1 min read Premium comments

Advertisement

Biomet UK Withdraws Flawed Hip Shell
Hip Replacement / Source: Wikipedia Commons and NIH
Secondary

Biomet UK Ltd wants hospitals that have the Mallory-Head 6 Hole Shell HA/PC implant used in hip replacements to discontinue using the shell due to a manufacturing error.

In an August 1, 2014 “Field Safety Correction Action, ” Richard Castaneda, UK Quality and Regulatory Compliance Director for Biomet UK, wrote that following a complaint, Biomet UK initiated an investigation that revealed that certain shells “have been manufactured without the pre-defined HA coating.”

The notice says that a customer who is not familiar with the HA Coated Mallory-Head Shell would not easily recognize that the implant has been manufactured without the required HA coating.

“No adverse health outcome is expected as the shells have the required porous coating for fixation, ” stated the notice.

The Mallory Head HA/PC acetabular shell is intended to be used as an uncemented acetabular component used as part of a total hip replacement. The HA coating is intended to enhance the bone growth into the porous coat layer of the acetabular implant.

The company is telling hospitals to alert their staffs, make sure all implants have been identified and removed, complete and return a “Response Form” and return the defective shells.

“Please accept our apologies for any inconvenience caused by this action, ” concluded the notice.

Read the notice here.

React:

Discussion

14
DS
Dr. Sarah MitchellOrthopedic Surgeon · Mayo Clinic

This is a fascinating development. In my practice we've seen similar outcomes with the revised protocol. The key differentiator seems to be patient selection criteria. Has anyone else noticed the correlation with BMI thresholds?

8
JT
James Thornton, MDSpine Fellow · HSS

Great point. I'd push back slightly on the conclusion, the sample size in the cited study is too small to draw population-level inferences. That said, the directional signal is compelling and worth a larger RCT.

5
RP
R. PatelSports Medicine · Stanford

We implemented a similar approach last year. Early results are promising but we're still gathering 12-month follow-up data. Happy to share our protocol if anyone is interested.

Join the conversation

Orthopedic professionals are discussing this. Sign in and upgrade to read every comment and add your voice.

Subscribe

Get Full Access

Read every OTW article and join member discussions for $24.99/month.

Get Full Access

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Orthopedics This Week

The most trusted source in orthopedic industry news since 2005. Covering spine, joints, trauma, biologics, and the business of orthopedics.

A publication of RRY Publications, LLC

LinkedInXFacebook

Categories

  • Spine
  • Joints
  • Upper Extremities
  • Foot & Ankle
  • Sports Medicine
  • Pain Mgmt
  • Trauma
  • Biologics
  • Technology
  • People
  • Company News
  • Legal & Regulatory

Resources

  • Subscribe
  • Community Posts
  • Job Board
  • Press Release Opportunities
  • Power Rankings
  • About OTW
  • Advertise
  • Contact Us

Get Full Access

Unlimited articles, community posts, and Power Rankings.

Get Full Access

Plans start at $24.99/mo · Annual saves 20%

© 2026 Orthopedics This Week · RRY Publications, LLC

Privacy PolicyTerms of ServiceCookie Policy