PINNACLE GRIPTION 1217-32-052Recalls & reported problems

Summary

The FDA's MAUDE database contains 239 adverse event reports that list this exact device (DI 10603295010302), received between Jun 22, 2017 and Sep 25, 2026 — classified as 2 deaths, 213 injuries, 24 malfunctions.

The most frequently reported specific device problem is “Device Dislodged or Dislocated” (28 reports).

Reports come from manufacturers, hospitals and patients and are not verified by the FDA. A report does not prove the device caused the event, and counts can't be used to compare devices or estimate failure rates. What reports can and can't tell you · How this data works · Data updated Oct 18, 2026.

Most reported problems

Recent adverse event reports

The 25 most recent of 239 reports, in the reporter's own words as published by the FDA.

• MalfunctionSep 25, 2026Fracture

  It was reported that the cup was inserted and removed to ream deeper. The gription coating had come off on the edge of the cup. A multi-hole cup was used as the backup. All available information has been disclosed.

  Patient problems: No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions

  MAUDE report 50898501 ↗
• InjurySep 10, 2026Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem

  It was reported that patient was revised due to pain.DOI: Unknown.DOR: (b)(6)2026.Affected Side: Left.

  Patient problems: Pain

  MAUDE report 50717164 ↗
• InjuryJul 30, 2026Device Dislodged or Dislocated; Noise, Audible

  It was reported that patient had a revision hip procedure through a direct lateral approach. The original hip replacement procedure with Pinnacle Trilock implants was completed 7 years previously. The patient had presented in AE with a two day history of pain, and reported hearing a ¿clunk¿ sound. The revision procedure involved the extraction of a Pinnacle Sector Cup 52mm, a Poly 52/32mm, and a 32mm ceramic head.

  Patient problems: Pain

  MAUDE report 50083533 ↗
• InjuryJul 2, 2026Device Dislodged or Dislocated

  IT WAS REPORTED THAT THE PATIENT HAD A REVISION OF LEFT THA BOTH FEMORAL HEAD AND ACETABULAR LINER DUE TO COMPLAINTS OF PERSISTENT LEFT HIP PAIN. DURING THE PROCEDURE THE ACETABULAR LINER WAS GROSSLY LOOSE AND WAS REMOVED WITH A HAND TOOL. SAUCERIZATION OF LEFT LATERAL FEMORAL CORTEX. TRANSFER OF GLUTEUS MAXIMUS AND TENSOR FASCIA LATA TO GREATER TROCHANTER. PLACEMENT OF SURGEON PREPARED ANTIBIOTIC LOADED BIODEGRADABLE BEADS. DOI: (B)(6) 2019. DOR: (B)(6) 2024. AFFECTED AREA: LEFT HIP.

  Patient problems: Joint Laxity; Osteolysis; Pain; Swelling/ Edema

  MAUDE report 25691863 ↗
• InjuryFeb 11, 2026Device Dislodged or Dislocated

  ADDITIONAL INFORMATION STATES THAT BESIDES INSTABILITY AND NEEDING A REVISION THERE WAS NO OTHER PATIENT CONSEQUENCE.

  Patient problems: Insufficient Information; Joint Laxity

  MAUDE report 24315571 ↗
• InjuryFeb 9, 2026Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem

  IT WAS REPORTED THAT ACETABULAR COMPONENT FAILURE. AFFECTED SIDE: UNKNOWN.

  Patient problems: Insufficient Information

  MAUDE report 24292051 ↗
• InjuryJan 30, 2026Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem

  IT WAS REPORTED THAT PATIENT WAS REVISED DUE TO INSTABILITY CONCERNS OF THE REVISION SURGEON. DOI: UNKNOWN. DOR: (B)(6) 2026. AFFECTED SIDE: LEFT HIP.

  Patient problems: Joint Laxity

  MAUDE report 24221692 ↗
• InjuryDec 5, 2025Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem; Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem

  IT WAS REPORTED THAT PATIENT WAS REVISED DUE TO ACATABULAR CUP LOOSENING AT THE BONE TO IMPLANT INTERFACE. REVISION OF ACETABULAR COMPONENT FOR PAIN AND SUSPECTED LOOSENING. THE CUP APPEARED TO BE WELL INGROWN INTRAOPERATIVELY. DOI: (B)(6) 2021. DOR: (B)(6) 2025. AFFECTED SIDE: LEFT.

  Patient problems: Pain

  MAUDE report 23732465 ↗
• InjuryNov 3, 2025Use of Device Problem; Migration; Use of Device Problem; Migration

  IT WAS REPORTED THAT THE CUP LACKED STABILITY. THERE WAS A FRACTURE IN THE ACETABULUM THAT MADE THE CUP MIGRATE. SURGEON REMOVED THE HEAD, HOLE ELIMINATOR, 3 SCREWS AND CUP. THE ACTIS STEM REMAINS IN THE PATIENT. THERE WERE NO ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE SCREWS. DOI: (B)(6) 2025, DOR: (B)(6) 2025, AFFECTED SIDE: LEFT HIP.

  Patient problems: Bone Fracture(s); Joint Laxity

  MAUDE report 23453013 ↗
• InjuryOct 28, 2025Device Dislodged or Dislocated; Device Dislodged or Dislocated

  ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RECEIVED: A. WAS/WERE THERE ANY ADVERSE CONSEQUENCE/S THAT AFFECTED THE PATIENT BECAUSE OF THE REPORTED EVENT? ONLY HAVING TO HAVE A SECOND SURGERY IN 4 DAYS. B. PLEASE PROVIDE PATIENT STATUS/ OUTCOME: PATIENT HAS BEEN DOING FINE SINCE THE REVISION AS FAR AS I KNOW. C. PLEASE CONFIRM IF THERE WAS ANY ALLEGATION AGAINST THE HEAD? NO ALLEGATION AGAINST THE HEAD.

  Patient problems: Insufficient Information

  MAUDE report 23407251 ↗
• InjurySep 11, 2025Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem; Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem

  ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED AND STATES THAT: THE CEMENTMOLD PLACED ON THE ACETABULAR SIDE DISLOCATED, AND THE CEMENTMOLD WAS REPLACED AGAIN.

  Patient problems: Pain; Unspecified Infection

  MAUDE report 23027554 ↗
• InjurySep 9, 2025Use of Device Problem; Use of Device Problem

  IT WAS REPORTED THAT A LEFT PRIMARY HIP WAS DONE ON (B)(6) 2025. THE PATIENT WAS TAKEN FOR RECOVERY. PATIENT MADE A JERKING MOTION AND HAD SOME DISCOMFORT. THE STAFF DETERMINED THAT PATIENT HAD DISLOCATED. THE SURGEON, TOOK THE PATIENT BACK TO THE OR AROUND 2PM ON (B)(6) 2025. THE CUP, LINER, & SCREWS WERE REMOVED. THE SURGEON REPOSITIONED A NEW CUP, ADDED 2 SCREWS, AND A +4/10* LINER. DOI: (B)(6) 2025. DOR: (B)(6) 2025. AFFECTED SIDE: LEFT HIP.

  Patient problems: Discomfort

  MAUDE report 23006691 ↗
• InjuryAug 29, 2025Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem; Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem

  THE PATIENT WAS REVISED HIP DUE TO POOR BONE QUALITY. DOI: (B)(6) 2025. DOR: (B)(6) 2025. AFFECTED SIDE: LEFT HIP.

  Patient problems: Insufficient Information

  MAUDE report 22921906 ↗
• InjuryJun 11, 2025Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem; Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem

  IT WAS REPORTED THAT THE PATIENT WAS REVISED DUE TO INFECTION. AFFECTED SIDE: LEFT HIP.

  Patient problems: Unspecified Infection

  MAUDE report 22187577 ↗
• InjuryMay 8, 2025Osseointegration Problem; Osseointegration Problem

  (B)(6) FIRST REPORT OF RETRIEVALS FOR STATEMENT OF WORK 10 FOR Q1 OF 2025. (B)(6) IS THE RESEARCH LOCATION, AND NOT THE FACILITY OF PLACEMENT. A DEPUY SYNTHES IMPLANT WAS REVISED AND REVIEWED FOR ANALYSIS. REASON FOR REVISION: REVISION DUE TO LOOSE ACETABUAR CUP AND PAIN. AT REMOVAL THERE WAS MINOR YELLOWING.

  Patient problems: Inadequate Osseointegration; Pain

  MAUDE report 21986634 ↗
• InjuryMay 8, 2025Osseointegration Problem; Migration; Osseointegration Problem; Migration

  THAYER SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING AT DARTMOUTH FIRST REPORT OF RETRIEVALS FOR STATEMENT OF WORK 10 FOR Q1 OF 2025. DARTMOUTH IS THE RESEARCH LOCATION, AND NOT THE FACILITY OF PLACEMENT. A DEPUY SYNTHES IMPLANT WAS REVISED AND REVIEWED FOR ANALYSIS. REASON FOR REVISION: REVISION DUE TO LOOSE AND SUBSIDED ACETABULAR CUP. AT REMOVAL THERE WAS MINOR YELLOWING OF THE ACETABULAR LINER.

  Patient problems: Inadequate Osseointegration

  MAUDE report 21983905 ↗
• InjuryMay 2, 2025Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem; Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem

  THE PATIENT WAS REVISED DUE TO INFECTED LEFT HIP. NO SURGICAL DELAY. AFFECTED SIDE: LEFT HIP.

  Patient problems: Unspecified Infection

  MAUDE report 21952836 ↗
• InjuryApr 21, 2025Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem; Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem

  IT WAS REPORTED THAT THE PATIENT WAS REVISED DUE TO PAIN. THE SURGICAL DELAY IS UNKNOWN. DOI: UNKNOWN. DOR: (B)(6) 2025. AFFECTED SIDE: RIGHT HIP.

  Patient problems: Pain

  MAUDE report 21872085 ↗
• InjuryApr 21, 2025Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem; Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem

  ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RECEIVED: A. I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST A CONFIRMATION OF PRODUCT CODE FOR THE FEMORAL HEAD FOR THIS CASE. SURGEON WAS PRETTY POSITIVE IT WAS PROPERLY 32/36 HEAD ¿ MOST LIKELY THE +5 (136522000 ARTICULEZE BALL 32MM +5/ 136552000 ARTICULEZE M HEAD 36MM +5) THAT WAS REMOVED FROM THE PATIENT, BUT THERE WAS NO WAY TO READ OFF THE FEMORAL HEAD AS WAS SO WORN AND SCRATCHED. WE TRIED TO DETERMINE THE ENGAGEMENT LENGTH OFF TRIALS WE HAD. HOWEVER, THERE WAS A FAIR AMOUNT OF DAMAGE DURING THE PATIENT¿S TRAUMA EVENT THAT LED TO THE REVISION AND DAMAGED THE CUP, LINER AND FEMORAL HEAD. BUT HE ALSO MENTIONED THAT 20 YEARS AGO THERE WAS SOME ODD HEADS ABOUT SO WE COULDN'T BE SURE. B. JUST FOR CLARIFICATION- THE REASON FOR THIS REVISION ¿ WAS IT DUE TO PATIENT FACTORS?? WHAT WAS THE TRAUMA EVENT? YES, IT IS REASONABLE TO CONCLUDE THAT THE PRIMARY REASON FOR REVISION IS DRIVEN BY PATIENT FACTORS AND TRAUMA. I BELIEVE IT WAS A LITTLE DIFFICULT TO ASCERTAIN THE EXACT TIMING AND EVENTS DUE TO THE PATIENT NOT BEING A RELIABLE HISTORIAN HOWEVER IT SEEMED THAT THE PATIENT HAD TWO TRAUMA EVENTS (HE DIDN'T GIVE TOO MUCH DETAIL AROUND THESE). FOLLOWING THE FIRST EVENT THE SURGEON WASN'T

  Patient problems: Bone Fracture(s)

  MAUDE report 21871817 ↗
• InjuryApr 2, 2025Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem; Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem

  IT WAS REPORTED THAT THE PATIENT WAS REVISED DUE TO INFECTED HIP AND EXPLANT THEN STAGE 1 OF A 2 STAGE REVISION. SURGICAL DELAY WAS UNKNOWN. DOI: (B)(6) 2024. DOR: (B)(6) 2025. AFFECTED SIDE: UNKNOWN.

  Patient problems: Unspecified Infection

  MAUDE report 21755654 ↗
• InjuryApr 2, 2025Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem; Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem

  PATIENT WAS REVISED DUE TO HIP INFECTION. STAGE 1 OF 2 WAS PERFORMED AND SURGEON EXPLANTED ALL OF THE EXISTING IMPLANTS. DOI: (B)(6) 2024. DOR: (B)(6) 2025. AFFECTED SIDE: UNKNOWN HIP.

  Patient problems: Unspecified Infection

  MAUDE report 21753184 ↗
• MalfunctionMar 13, 2025Difficult to Insert; Difficult to Insert

  ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED: A. WAS THERE ANY SURGICAL DELAY? IF YES, WHAT IS THE DURATION OF THE DELAY? YES. 30 MINUTES. B. WAS/WERE THERE ANY PATIENT CONSEQUENCE/S RELATED TO THE EVENT? NO. C. PLEASE CONFIRM THE QUANTITY OF THE SCREWS THEY ARE TRIED WITH. 1. D. WHY WAS THE LINERS WOULD NOT SEAT INTO THE CUP? IS THERE ANY ISSUE WITH THE CUP? - DO NOT KNOW IF SOMETHING IS WRONG WITH THE CUP OR LINERS. WHY I'M SENDING IT ALL BACK. ALSO THE PART NUMBER FOR THE CUP IS WRONG. IT SHOULD BE 121732052 I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT DEPUY FINDS AFTER THEY EXAMINE THE CUP AND LINERS TO SEE WHY THE LINERS WOULD NOT SEAT.

  Patient problems: No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions

  MAUDE report 21596368 ↗
• InjuryFeb 10, 2025Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem; Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem

  THE PATIENT HAD A REVISION OF ALL THE IMPLANTS DUE TO INFECTION. UNKNOWN SURGICAL DELAY. DOI: UNKNOWN. DOR: (B)(6) 2025. AFFECTED SIDE: UNKNOWN.

  Patient problems: Unspecified Infection

  MAUDE report 21345776 ↗
• InjuryJan 15, 2025Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem; Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem

  IT WAS REPORTED THAT THE PATIENT WAS SCHEDULED FOR A HIP REVISION FIVE YEARS POST-IMPLANT. THE PATIENT REPORTED HAVING INCREASING RIGHT HIP PAIN ALONG WITH SUBLUXATION ¿ALMOST DISLOCATING¿. THE PATIENT IS ALSO EXPERIENCING LEFT KNEE SWELLING, WHICH THEY ARE ATTRIBUTING TO THEIR ¿DUCK WALKING¿ DUE TO PAIN IN THE RIGHT HIP.

  Patient problems: Ambulation or Postural Difficulties; Joint Laxity; Pain

  MAUDE report 21161066 ↗
• InjuryJan 3, 2025Use of Device Problem; Use of Device Problem

  PATIENT WAS REVISED DUE TO DISLOCATION, CUP WAS TOO RETROVERTED. AFFECTED SIDE: LEFT HIP.

  Patient problems: Insufficient Information

  MAUDE report 21067706 ↗