Patients across the country continue to report painful failures linked to the Cartiva Synthetic Cartilage Implant. The device entered the market as a motion-preserving option for big-toe arthritis, yet a growing group of individuals now describe a far different experience. Many say the implant sank, loosened, shifted, or failed outright. Surgeons eventually saw revision surgeries climbing. Reports circulated long before litigation gained traction, but the wave of lawsuits now reflects the accumulated weight of those experiences.
Stryker’s decision to recall the Cartiva implant in 2024 added new momentum. Plaintiffs argue the recall validated what many had felt for years. Lawyers reviewing these cases see a pattern of similar complications. Courts tracking the litigation now face a rising volume of claims. The story carries implications for device safety oversight and long-term performance reporting across the medical-device field.
How the Lawsuit Started
Cartiva’s implant arrived with strong marketing and optimistic projections. Many surgeons welcomed a product that could reduce the need for joint-fusion surgery. The design relied on a hydrogel plug placed in the first metatarsophalangeal joint. The idea promised less invasive care and preserved motion. Patients who wanted to avoid fusion often chose this option.
Reports of trouble surfaced over time. Individuals described persistent pain, stiffness, and unusual pressure. Some noticed joints collapsing around the implant. Surgeons who once recommended the device began removing it more often. Similar complications showing up in unrelated patients pushed attorneys to investigate. Litigation followed once a clear pattern emerged.
Background of the Case
The Cartiva implant stood on early clinical data that showed positive short-term outcomes. Surgeons relied on those numbers. Patients trusted them. Reality shifted once long-term procedures increased. Several doctors encountered subsidence, where the implant gradually sank into surrounding bone. Others observed displacement or a lack of adequate pain improvement. A number of patients required fusion surgery after removal, the very procedure the implant sought to avoid.
Stryker acquired rights to the device after earlier companies developed and marketed it. Complaints kept building. Removal rates appeared higher than early research suggested. Post-market signals eventually painted a different picture. The manufacturer pulled the device from the market through a full recall issued in late 2024. The recall accelerated lawsuit filings. Many injured patients contacted attorneys within weeks of the announcement.
Key Allegations
Plaintiffs claim the implant suffered from a design flaw that made it prone to sinking, loosening, or shifting under joint pressure. Lawsuits argue that the material could not maintain long-term stability. Many filings state that surgeons were not given adequate warnings about the risks of failure.
Plaintiffs also raise claims rooted in negligence. Lawyers assert that the device reached the market without enough long-term durability data. Some complaints argue that the manufacturer did not react quickly once reports signaled rising complication trends. Other allegations include breach of warranty and insufficient disclosure of known problems. Defendants named in suits often include current and former manufacturers tied to the product’s development.
TIMELINE OF THE CARTIVA IMPLANT CASE
Early Complaints and Consumer Signals
Patients who received the implant began noticing problems several years after the device became available. Many sought medical care for lingering pain. Surgeons performed imaging studies that showed sinking or malalignment. Word circulated among medical professionals. Niche medical forums and patient groups described similar experiences. Some legal teams recognized these recurring stories and opened investigations.
Company Response
Stryker continued distributing the implant until complication reports grew too numerous to ignore. Surgeons gradually reduced their use as outcomes deteriorated. The manufacturer eventually initiated a full recall of the Cartiva Synthetic Cartilage Implant in 2024. That decision removed the device from circulation and confirmed the seriousness of reported problems. Lawyers representing affected individuals began referencing the recall as an important moment in case development.
Court Filings and Legal Steps
Multiple lawsuits landed in state and federal courts. Several early cases appeared in Maryland, Illinois, Texas, and West Virginia. A federal case in West Virginia received a scheduling order that set one of the first anticipated trials. Later requests from both parties pushed the timeline back. Courts continued consolidating pre-trial steps. Attorneys pursued discovery into design issues, company knowledge, and internal data. New plaintiffs kept joining the litigation as news of the recall spread.
Judge Notes or Judicial Signals
A federal judge overseeing a West Virginia case agreed to extend deadlines. The court directed the parties to engage in settlement discussions. The scheduling shift moved the first trial window into 2026. Judges overseeing similar cases signaled willingness to consider mediation, reflecting the complexity of medical-device claims and the number of individuals who may ultimately join.
Government or Regulatory Actions
The implant originally reached the market through FDA clearance under earlier clinical research. Post-market experience changed the outlook. Higher than expected rates of subsidence, loosening, and revision surgery prompted deeper scrutiny. Stryker then issued a full recall covering all distributed Cartiva implants. No other federal action has been publicly documented beyond the recall itself.
Settlement Timeline
Publicly available information shows no global settlement for all cases. Lawyers involved in early filings requested time to negotiate. Courts encouraged settlement discussions before trial. Individual cases may resolve privately, though no broad agreement has been announced. Plaintiffs continue preparing for litigation as mediation efforts develop.
Current Status
Cartiva lawsuits remain active across several jurisdictions. Trial scheduling places the earliest major case in 2026. Plaintiffs continue filing new claims. Law firms still review medical records for individuals who needed implant removal or corrective surgery. The recall keeps attention on long-term oversight of orthopedic devices.
Additional Case Details
Litigation often names multiple companies because the device changed corporate hands during its commercial life. Plaintiffs frequently include operative notes, imaging results, and revision-surgery documentation in support of their claims. Surgeons who once relied on the implant now treat large numbers of patients experiencing complications. Attorneys expect more filings as additional patients discover persistent problems months or years after implantation.
Some lawsuits reference published research describing higher failure rates than early trials suggested. Removal surgery has emerged as a common corrective step. Individuals who required fusion after implant failure often cite permanent loss of motion, chronic pain, and disruption to daily activities. Compensation claims typically cover medical expenses, lost income, and long-term impairment.
Final Summary
Cartiva implant lawsuits question a device that entered the market with strong expectations and widespread surgical adoption. Many patients now contend that the implant delivered instability instead of relief. Courts preparing for trial will examine the design, the failure patterns, and the warnings given to doctors and patients. The outcome could influence future orthopedic-device approvals and monitoring requirements.
Disclaimer: This article provides general information, not legal advice. If you have any questions about this, please don’t hesitate to contact us.
