Both prior answers are on point. In situations such as the one you face, the idea of having to undergo an invasive operation to address a potential product issue is understandably not one that most people want to do when other options may be available. In some cases, companies have paid for so-called medical monitoring costs. See the following article, "N.J. Justices to Decide Whether Merck's on Hook for Vioxx Users' Medical Monitoring Costs," for a discussion of a class action in which the plaintiffs are seeking to have Merck pay for such costs:
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1193216621898
This answer does not, nor is it intended to, create an attorney-client relationship, but is offered solely for informational purposes. Since the facts of each case are different, it is important to seek out qualified counsel with whom information can be shared and assessed under an attorney-client privilege so that competent and tailored advice can be provided.