Legal Help ServicesPort catheter safety: the questions go back decades.
Long before the recent verdict, researchers were studying catheter failure. Here is what they found and what patients later alleged.
Could the device have been made safer?
Researchers examined surface quality, coatings and material strength. Patients are asking whether companies did enough to prevent avoidable harm.
- Published research raised specific engineering questions.
- A 2020 PowerPort complaint alleged design and warning failures.
- Neither establishes what happened to every patient. Your device and circumstances matter.
Editorial illustration. Not actual claimants.
The record, in focus
The research came before the headlines.
Research and court history. The studies did not all examine Bard PowerPorts.
Conceptual illustration. Not actual evidence or a scientific micrograph.
-
1985
A call for better quality control
Hecker and Scandrett tested 37 catheter types in sheep. Rougher surfaces generally caused more clotting within the same plastic type. They urged manufacturers to improve quality control and reported that none of several manufacturers contacted had investigated roughness. They did not identify Bard as a recipient.
-
2010
Particle loss leaves surface defects
Verbeke and colleagues studied temporary dialysis catheters in 16 patients, plus laboratory samples. Conventional catheters lost barium-sulfate particles; surface defects favored bacterial growth. A coating prevented particle loss in the tested devices. This was not a PowerPort trial or proof of clinical infection rates. Gambro sponsored the study.
-
2016
Mechanical stress exposes weak points
Braun and colleagues found notches near lost barium-sulfate particles after mechanical stress. The study used Cook and PFM materials, not Bard products. Its authors warned against extrapolating forearm-catheter findings to chest ports. They did not find significant chemical aging in the tested materials.
-
June 22, 2020
A patient challenges Bard in court
The file-stamped amended complaint in Duff v. C.R. Bard alleged that a PowerPort MRI with a Groshong catheter fractured because of defects involving its construction. It cited the 1985 paper and alleged inadequate warnings and failures to address adverse-event reports. This establishes allegations by 2020, not when all litigation first began.
What the research shows.
A study is not a verdict. A report is not proof that a device caused an injury. And a verdict for one patient does not decide another person’s claim.
Other research in the early source collection
Weijmer, 2001: a single non-Bard dialysis-catheter fracture investigation identified barium-sulfate aggregates and trapped air. The authors considered a manufacturing problem the most likely cause. It is not a PowerPort failure-rate study.
Wildgruber, 2017: a published letter explains particle loss and material fatigue, with microscopy images. It discusses existing research rather than reporting a new clinical trial.
Study references and limits
- Hecker & Scandrett, Journal of Biomedical Materials Research 19 (1985), 381 to 395. DOI: 10.1002/jbm.820190404.
- Verbeke et al., Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation 25 (2010), 1207 to 1213. DOI: 10.1093/ndt/gfp638. The study did not measure hard clinical endpoints.
- Braun et al., Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials 64 (2016), 281 to 291. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2016.08.002. Two manufacturers and forearm-catheter materials; results cannot simply be applied to chest ports.
- Weijmer et al., American Journal of Kidney Diseases 38 (2001), 858 to 861. DOI: 10.1053/ajkd.2001.27707.
- Wildgruber, AJR 209 (2017), W198. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.17.18125.
A later study by Wu et al. (PLOS ONE, 2021; DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253818) found no significant difference in cumulative complication incidence between matched material groups and emphasized mechanical stresses. Findings vary with the product and placement.
Verdict sources
Trial attorneys report a September 4, 2026 verdict of $40 million in compensatory damages for Kimberly Divelbliss. The case involved a Bard PowerPort with a Groshong silicone catheter. The result was obtained by other attorneys, not Legal Help Services.
Wagstaff & Cartmell report. Laminack, Pirtle & Martines report.
FDA device reports can help investigators spot patterns. They do not, by themselves, establish failure rates or the cause of an individual patient’s injury.
Tell us what happened. Find out what comes next.
If a port complication disrupted your life, ask about your options. No records are needed to make an initial inquiry. A review does not guarantee a case or compensation.
Research is summarized with its limits. Court source: Duff v. C.R. Bard, No. 5:20-cv-00060, Document 20, filed June 22, 2020, especially paragraphs 17 to 23 and 31 to 39. These are allegations, not findings. FDA MAUDE data limitations apply. Information reviewed September 15, 2026.