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/Legal & Regulatory and Reimbursement/Allograft Litigation Moved Up to Federal Court
Legal & Regulatory and Reimbursement

Allograft Litigation Moved Up to Federal Court

June 21, 2023 2 min read Premium comments

Advertisement

Allograft Litigation Moved Up to Federal Court
Source: Unsplash and Tingey Injury Law Firm
#medtronicSecondary#fibercel#spinalgrafttechnologies

A number of lawsuits in the ongoing FiberCel allograft litigation have been removed to federal court, including a recent case filed by William Wilcox.

Wilcox claims that during his 2021 spinal surgery, the FiberCel used was contaminated with tuberculosis. This he asserts led to his development of tuberculosis and need for medical care.

In his complaint he claims that “as a direct and proximate result of the implantation of contaminated FiberCel, Plaintiff [Wilcox] was forced to undergo two revision surgeries in an attempt to mitigate the damage done by the contaminated FiberCel.” He further argues that “as a direct and proximate result of the implantation of contaminated FiberCel, Plaintiff [Wilcox] was forced to undergo a grueling medical protocol to manage his TB [tuberculosis] diagnosis.”

According to court documents, FiberCel is a “human tissue allograft consisting of cryopreserved cancellous and corticocancellous bone matrix that is aseptically processed to preserve native factors that support bone repair.” It “can be used in orthopedic or reconstructive bone grafting procedures in combination with autologous bone or other forms of allograft bone, or alone as a bone graft.”

In 2021, Aziyo Biologics (based in Silver Springs, Maryland) announced a voluntary recall for a donor lot FiberCel Variable Bone Matrix consisting of 154 units of FiberCel. All of the units had been derived from a single donor and had been shipped to 20 states.

According to court documents, Aziyo Biologics admits that “after it learned of post-surgical infections in patients treated with FiberCel, including some patients who tested positive for tuberculosis, Aziyo issued notice of the voluntary recall to hospitals that received FiberCel from the voluntarily recalled lot.”

Wilcox initially filed his lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Loudoun County, Virginia. His complaint listed the following as defendants: Aziyo Biologics, Inc.; Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc.; SpinalGraft Technologies, LLC; DCI Donor Services, Inc.; and New Mexico Donor Services.

According to court documents, the FiberCel at issue was processed by Aziyo and distributed by SpinalGraft Technologies, a wholly owned subsidiary of Medtronic Sofamor Danek. Additionally, New Mexico Donor Services, one of DCI Donor Service’s tissue recovery facilities, “recovered and provided the subject human donor tissue to Aziyo.”

Advertisement

The litigation is ongoing. According to the court’s most recent scheduling order in the matter, discovery should be completed by September 15, 2023.

Wilcox is not the only patient suing the companies following the recall. Since 2021, patients have been alleging harm and even death related to the contaminated FiberCel. For OTW’s original coverage of the litigation and recall, see “Wrongful Death Suit Hits Aziyo Over TB-Tainted Implant” and “Bone Graft Product Recalled Over TB Contamination Fears.”

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