Hypersensitivity reactions to metallic implants - diagnostic algorithm and suggested patch test series for clinical use

A rare case of pseudotumor formation associated with methyl methacrylate hypersensitivity in a patient following cemented total knee arthroplasty

Hypersensitivity to orthopedic implant materials has been well documented with potential catastrophic consequences if not addressed pre-operatively. The spectrum of reactions is wide, from mild non-specific pain with localized erythema to severe periprosthetic inflammatory destruction and pseudotumor formation. It is therefore essential to identify patients who have or are at risk for implant-associated hypersensitivity. Although metal sensitivity is commonly cited as the cause of these reactions, methyl methacrylate (MMA) has rarely been implicated. To the best of our knowledge, methyl methacrylate-associated pseudotumor formation has not yet been described. The following is a case report of a 68-year-old female who, after undergoing a routine cemented right total knee arthroplasty, developed a painless, enlarging mass during a 13-year period. This mass was found to be a pseudotumor in association with methyl methacrylate hypersensitivity. A review of pseudotumor pathogenesis, methyl methacrylate hypersensitivity, and preoperative preventative care is discussed.

Allergy to Surgical Implants

Surgical implants have a wide array of therapeutic uses, most commonly in joint replacements, but also in repair of pes excavatum and spinal disorders, in cardiac devices (stents, patches, pacers, valves), in gynecological implants, and in dentistry. Many of the metals used are immunologically active, as are the methacrylates and epoxies used in conjunction with several of these devices. Allergic responses to surgical components can present atypically as failure of the device, with nonspecific symptoms of localized pain, swelling, warmth, loosening, instability, itching, or burning; localized rash is infrequent. Identification of the specific metal and cement components used in a particular implant can be difficult, but is crucial to guide testing and interpretation of results. Nickel, cobalt, and chromium remain the most common metals implicated in implant failure due to metal sensitization; methacrylate-based cements are also important contributors. This review will provide a guide on how to assess and interpret the clinical history, identify the components used in surgery, test for sensitization, and provide advice on possible solutions. Data on the pathways of metal-induced immune stimulation are included. In this setting, the allergist, the dermatologist, or both have the potential to significantly improve surgical outcomes and patient care.

Revision for taper corrosion at the neck-body junction following total hip arthroplasty: pearls and pitfalls

The management of the patient with a recalled, modular neck-body total hip arthroplasty can be complex, as it involves a combination of clinical, technical, and medicolegal challenges. Management begins with a thorough history and physical exam, radiographic evaluation, infection workup, and serum metal ion levels. Three-dimensional imaging is obtained based on patient symptomatology and metal ion levels and is used to evaluate for the presence of an adverse local tissue response as well as the integrity of the existing soft tissue envelope. The decision to perform revision surgery is based on a combination of patient symptomatology, laboratory values, and imaging findings. Revision surgery involves the entire armamentarium of femoral revision techniques, and the acetabulum may need to be revised at the surgeon's discretion. The femoral implant can often be removed without disrupting the femoral bone envelope; however, the surgeon should have a low threshold to perform an extended trochanteric osteotomy.

Contact dermatitis: a practice parameter-update 2015

This parameter was developed by the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters, which represents the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI); the American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (ACAAI); and the Joint Council of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. The AAAAI and the ACAAI have jointly accepted responsibility for establishing "Contact Dermatitis: A Practice Parameter-Update 2015." This is a complete and comprehensive document at the current time. The medical environment is changing and not all recommendations will be appropriate or applicable to all patients. Because this document incorporated the efforts of many participants, no single individual, including members serving on the Joint Task Force, are authorized to provide an official AAAAI or ACAAI interpretation of these practice parameters. Any request for information or interpretation of this practice parameter by the AAAAI or ACAAI should be directed to the Executive Offices of the AAAAI, the ACAAI, and the Joint Council of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. These parameters are not designed for use by the pharmaceutical industry in drug development or promotion. Previously published practice parameters of the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters for Allergy & Immunology are available at http://www.JCAAI.org or http://www.allergyparameters.org.

Dermatitis caused by metal allergy after coil embolization for unruptured cerebral aneurysm

We report a rare case of metal-induced dermatitis after coil embolization for cerebral aneurysm. A 51-year-old woman experienced a rash around the lips and neck 3 weeks after coil embolization. Judging from the clinical course and results of several patch tests, platinum coils were considered to have induced the dermatitis. Symptoms were relieved with administration of oral steroids. This represents the first report of metal-induced dermatitis after neuroendovascular treatment. The possibility of metal allergy was difficult to suspect preoperatively. However, early evaluation and referral are important when skin symptoms are observed postoperatively.

Dermatitis caused by metal allergy after coil embolization for unruptured cerebral aneurysm

We report a rare case of metal-induced dermatitis after coil embolization for cerebral aneurysm. A 51-year-old woman experienced a rash around the lips and neck 3 weeks after coil embolization. Judging from the clinical course and results of several patch tests, platinum coils were considered to have induced the dermatitis. Symptoms were relieved with administration of oral steroids. This represents the first report of metal-induced dermatitis after neuroendovascular treatment. The possibility of metal allergy was difficult to suspect preoperatively. However, early evaluation and referral are important when skin symptoms are observed postoperatively.

European Society of Contact Dermatitis guideline for diagnostic patch testing - recommendations on best practice

The present guideline summarizes all aspects of patch testing for the diagnosis of contact allergy in patients suspected of suffering, or having been suffering, from allergic contact dermatitis or other delayed-type hypersensitivity skin and mucosal conditions. Sections with brief descriptions and discussions of different pertinent topics are followed by a highlighted short practical recommendation. Topics comprise, after an introduction with important definitions, materials, technique, modifications of epicutaneous testing, individual factors influencing the patch test outcome or necessitating special considerations, children, patients with occupational contact dermatitis and drug eruptions as special groups, patch testing of materials brought in by the patient, adverse effects of patch testing, and the final evaluation and patient counselling based on this judgement. Finally, short reference is made to aspects of (continuing) medical education and to electronic collection of data for epidemiological surveillance.

Chromium-induced diffuse dermatitis with lymph node involvement resulting from Langerhans cell histiocytosis after metal-on-metal hip resurfacing

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a highly effective surgical treatment for severe joint involvement. However, due to the release of metal ions in the blood, the patients who undergo hip replacement with metal-on-metal (MOM) bearings may develop signs of allergic skin disease. We report a case of a 60-year-old man who had received MOM hip resurfacing 5 years earlier for osteoarthritis. He presented with a 3-year history of diffuse dermatitis that did not respond to antihistamines and corticosteroids and also had elevated serum levels of chromium and cobalt. A patch test revealed chromium-sulfate hypersensitivity. A skin biopsy showed nonspecific perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate associated with histiocytes. A biopsy of an inguinal lymph node demonstrated large aggregates of Langerhans cells, suggesting type IV delayed-type hypersensitivity. The prosthesis was replaced using ceramic-on-ceramic bearings and the dermatitis resolved after 3 months. The lymph nodes decreased in volume and the serum chromium levels normalized within 24 months of revision surgery. The high levels of serum ions associated with the metal debris from MOM-THAs may induce sensitization and type IV hypersensitivity reactions. Replacing the prosthesis using alternative coupling surfaces is the only approach that has the capacity to resolve these symptoms. Physicians who are not familiar with this issue may misdiagnose systemic symptoms and provide inadequate treatment.

Complications Related to Metal-on-Metal Articulation in Trapeziometacarpal Joint Total Joint Arthroplasty

Adverse reactions to metal-on-metal (MoM) prostheses are well known from total hip joint resurfacing arthroplasty with elevated serum chrome or cobalt, pain and pseudo tumor formation. It may, however, also be seen after total joint replacement of the trapeziometacarpal joint using MoM articulation, and we present two cases of failure of MoM prostheses due to elevated metal-serum levels in one case and pseudo tumor formation in another case. Furthermore, we suggest a diagnostic algorithm for joint pain after MoM trapeziometacarpal joint replacement based on published experiences from MoM hip prostheses and adverse reactions to metal.

Biomaterial hypersensitivity: is it real? Supportive evidence and approach considerations for metal allergic patients following total knee arthroplasty

The prospect of biomaterial hypersensitivity developing in response to joint implant materials was first presented more than 30 years ago. Many studies have established probable causation between first-generation metal-on-metal hip implants and hypersensitivity reactions. In a limited patient population, implant failure may ultimately be related to metal hypersensitivity. The examination of hypersensitivity reactions in current-generation metal-on-metal knee implants is comparatively limited. The purpose of this study is to summarize all available literature regarding biomaterial hypersensitivity after total knee arthroplasty, elucidate overall trends about this topic in the current literature, and provide a foundation for clinical approach considerations when biomaterial hypersensitivity is suspected.

[Complications of metal-on-metal tribological pairing]

BACKGROUND

Metal-on-metal (MoM) tribological pairing results in less volumetric abrasion than pairing with the conventionally used polyethylene and is associated with a lower risk of material failure compared to other hard-hard pairings. An increased frequency of problem cases in recent years has led to a great increase in uncertainty. Against this background in this article the current aspects of epidemiology, etiology, diagnostics and treatment of complications in MoM hip joint endoprostheses will be discussed.

EPIDEMIOLOGY AND ETIOLOGY

Based on the results from national endoprosthesis registers and selected clinical studies an evaluation of the rate of local complications from MoM tribological pairings was undertaken. A differentiation was made between MoM pairings in pedicled small head prostheses (≤ 32 mm), large head (> 32 mm) and surface replacement (OFE) endoprostheses. Each year MoM endoprostheses release on average 10(12)-10(14) cobalt (Co) and chromium (Cr) nanoparticles per patient. This release of metal ions and particles can lead to a variety of tissue reactions.

DIAGNOSTICS

A differentiation must be made between regular routine diagnostics within the framework of implant follow-up screening and specific investigations due to the occurrence of complaints. The diagnostics for patients treated with MoM hip endoprostheses consists of a standardized step-wise approach considering possible differential diagnoses and the utilization of modern laboratory chemical and radiological methods. When problems occur, a differentiation should preferentially be made between complaints not caused by metal and mechanical problems (e.g. prosthesis loosening and impingement) and symptoms due to periprosthetic infections.

THERAPY OF COMPLICATIONS

The normal standards for hip endoprosthetics are also valid for periprosthetic infections, fractures and other general complications. Specific measures are, however, necessary for complications due to metal-specific risks.

Chronic allergic contact dermatitis promotes skin cancer

Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) is well recognized as an adverse event associated with implantable medical devices that contain allergenic materials like nickel; however, other cutaneous consequences of chronic exposure to allergens in implanted devices are not well understood. Here, we present a clinical case of Marjolin's ulcer, an invasive squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) that developed in response to chronic ACD caused by an orthopedic implant. We used a standard murine model of contact hypersensitivity to determine whether chronic ACD promotes skin carcinogenesis. Chronic application of 1-fluoro-2,4-dinitrobenzene (DNFB) to carcinogen-treated skin led to the development of papillomas and aggressive SCC. DNFB-driven chronic ACD was marked by type 2 inflammation, which mediated skin carcinogenesis, as mice unable to mount an inflammatory response were less likely to develop skin tumors. Importantly, we found similar tumor-promoting inflammation surrounding the SCC in our patient. Our findings demonstrate that chronic ACD caused by constant exposure to an allergen can promote tumorigenesis at skin sites with preexisting cancer-initiated cells. Moreover, our results suggest that patients with implantable devices placed in close proximity to the skin should be monitored for ACD and highlight the importance of patch testing prior to the placement of such devices.

Latham J, G. Dunlop D, Oreffo RO. Bone and metal: an orthopaedic perspective on osseointegration of metals

The area of implant osseointegration is of major importance, given the predicted significant rise in the number of orthopaedic procedures and an increasingly ageing population. Osseointegration is a complex process involving a number of distinct mechanisms affected by the implant bulk properties and surface characteristics. Our understanding and ability to modify these mechanisms through alterations in implant design is continuously expanding. The following review considers the main aspects of material and surface alterations in metal implants, and the extent of their subsequent influence on osseointegration. Clinically, osseointegration results in asymptomatic stable durable fixation of orthopaedic implants. The complexity of achieving this outcome through incorporation and balance of contributory factors is highlighted through a clinical case report.

Metal release and metal allergy after total hip replacement with resurfacing versus conventional hybrid prosthesis

BACKGROUND

Metal-on-metal (MOM) total hip arthroplasties were reintroduced because of the problems with osteolysis and aseptic loosening related to polyethylene wear of early metal-on-polyethylene (MOP) arthroplasties. The volumetric wear rate has been greatly reduced with MOM arthroplasties; however, because of nano-size wear particles, the absolute number has been greatly increased. Thus, a source of metal ion exposure with the potential to sensitize patients is present. We hypothesized that higher amounts of wear particles result in increased release of metal ions and ultimately lead to an increased incidence of metal allergy.

METHODS

52 hips in 52 patients (median age 60 (51-64) years, 30 women) were randomized to either a MOM hip resurfacing system (ReCap) or a standard MOP total hip arthoplasty (Mallory Head/Exeter). Spot urine samples were collected preoperatively, postoperatively, after 3 months, and after 1, 2, and 5 years and tested with inductively coupled plasma-sector field mass spectrometry. After 5 years, hypersensitivity to metals was evaluated by patch testing and lymphocyte transformation assay. In addition, the patients answered a questionnaire about hypersensitivity.

RESULTS

A statistically significant 10- to 20-fold increase in urinary levels of cobalt and chromium was observed throughout the entire follow-up in the MOM group. The prevalence of metal allergy was similar between groups.

INTERPRETATION

While we observed significantly increased levels of metal ions in the urine during the entire follow-up period, no difference in prevalence of metal allergy was observed in the MOM group. However, the effect of long-term metal exposure remains uncertain.

Metal hypersensitivity reactions to implants: opinions and practices of patch testing dermatologists

BACKGROUND

Cutaneous metal hypersensitivity reactions (MHR) are common but rare with implanted devices.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to characterize the opinions of dermatologists who are actively evaluating/advising patients with MHR.

METHODS

A questionnaire was distributed to all individuals who attended the European Society of Contact Dermatitis (ESCD) 2012 and the American Contact Dermatitis Society 2013 meetings.

RESULTS

A total of 119 individuals responded with a participation rates of 10% (ESCD) and 32% (American Contact Dermatitis Society). Ninety-six percent of the respondents evaluate MHR and 91% were attending physicians. Orthopedic and dental devices were common problems compared with cardiovascular devices. Patch testing is the top choice for evaluating MHR. Lymphocyte transformation and intradermal tests are rarely used. Eighty-two percent of the respondents evaluate plastic/glue components in symptomatic patients postimplant. Most dermatologists use a tray specifically for joint allergy or a history-based custom array of allergens. Those patients with a strong clinical history of metal allergy should be evaluated before metal implantation (54%), whereas others forgo evaluation and recommend a titanium implant based on history alone (38%). Diagnostic criteria for postimplant reactions were evaluated. Eight percent of the respondents felt that no evaluation was necessary, with ESCD respondents being significantly more likely to not recommend evaluation (P = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Metal hypersensitivity reactions consultation requests are common for preimplant and postimplant issues. Patch testing is currently the best test for MHR.

Systemic nickel allergy after internal fixation of a bunionectomy

Allergic reactions to implanted metals have been estimated to occur in 1% to 5% of orthopedic cases. Stainless steel screws, which contain 14% nickel, are commonly used for internal fixation in an array of podiatric procedures. We present a rare case of a systemic allergic reaction to nickel secondary to stainless steel screw fixation in a bunionectomy procedure.

Treatment of adult Class II division 2 patient with metal hypersensitivity

This case report describes the orthodontic treatment of an adult female with an Angle Class II division 2 malocclusion with a severe deep bite and a congenitally missing lower incisor. The use of available orthodontic devices and materials was limited because the patient had metal allergies. Following a careful examination and case analysis, the preadjusted edgewise appliances and the microscrew implants were placed after the upper first premolars were extracted. After active treatment, a good facial profile and occlusion were achieved. These results have been maintained for 2 years following completion of the active treatment.

High rates of metal allergy amongst Nuss procedure patients dictate broader pre-operative testing

PURPOSE

A previous study from our group estimated that as few as 2.2% of pectus excavatum patients suffered from allergy to the implanted metal bar. We sought to assess recent changes in incidence of metal allergy and identify the benefit of metal allergy testing prior to surgery.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed of all consenting patients undergoing pectus repair during the six years between 9/2004 and 12/2010 at our institution. Incidence was based on clinical symptoms and/or T.R.U.E.® patch testing. Demographic data, history of atopy and history of metal allergy were collected. Type and number of bars used, suture site infection, skin rash and wound infection rates were reviewed.

RESULTS

Forty one of 639 patients (6.4%) had clinical or patch test evidence of metal allergy. Family history of metal allergy and pre-operative history of metal sensitivity were found to be statistically significant correlates.

CONCLUSIONS

The rate of metal allergy in the pectus excavatum population may be higher than previously reported. Patient or family history of metal allergy or metal sensitization may indicate increased risk. Metal allergy testing should be performed before Nuss procedure.

Systemic contact dermatitis and allergy to biomedical devices

Systemic contact dermatitis (SCD) refers to a skin condition where an individual who is cutaneously sensitized to an allergen will subsequently react to that same allergen or a cross-reacting allergen via the systemic route. It occurs to allergens including metals, medications, and foods. There has been recent interest in metal allergy as it relates to the implantation of devices such as orthopedic, dental, cardiac, and gynecologic implants. This review will briefly address all causes of systemic contact dermatitis with a special and expanded focus on metal implant allergy. We present literature on SCD to various metal biomedical devices, patch testing for diagnosis of metal allergy pre and post implantation and treatment.

Metal allergy screening prior to joint arthroplasty and its influence on implant choice: a delphi consensus study amongst orthopaedic arthroplasty surgeons

Purpose

This study was undertaken to obtain a consensus amongst joint arthroplasty experts with regards to metal allergy screening prior to joint arthroplasty and the choice of implant in patients with potential metal allergy.

Materials and Methods

A web based Delphi consensus study was used including orthopaedic surgeons that had previously published on the topic of knee, hip or shoulder arthroplasty. Two rounds of questionnaires were sent via electronic mail. Consensus was considered reached if agreement was 60% or higher.

Results

Eighteen surgeons responded to the first and 17 to the second round of questionnaires. There was consensus that patients having metal arthroplasty surgery should not be routinely questioned about metal allergy prior to surgery. There was consensus that patch testing is not necessary even if metal allergy is suspected. Most respondents agreed in proceeding with cobalt chromium or stainless steel implant in patients suspected of metal allergy regardless of the results of cutaneous patch testing.

Conclusions

This consensus study suggests that routine metal allergy screening prior to joint arthroplasty is not essential. The use of traditional cobalt chromium/stainless steel implants is recommended regardless of the patient's metal allergy status based on expert opinion through this study.

Osteolysis around total knee arthroplasty: a review of pathogenetic mechanisms

Aseptic loosening and other wear-related complications are some of the most frequent late reasons for revision of total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Periprosthetic osteolysis (PPOL) pre-dates aseptic loosening in many cases, indicating the clinical significance of this pathogenic mechanism. A variety of implant-, surgery- and host-related factors have been delineated to explain the development of PPOL. These factors influence the development of PPOL because of changes in mechanical stresses within the vicinity of the prosthetic device, excessive wear of the polyethylene liner, and joint fluid pressure and flow acting on the peri-implant bone. The process of aseptic loosening is initially governed by factors such as implant/limb alignment, device fixation quality and muscle coordination/strength. Later, large numbers of wear particles detached from TKA trigger and perpetuate particle disease, as highlighted by progressive growth of inflammatory/granulomatous tissue around the joint cavity. An increased accumulation of osteoclasts at the bone-implant interface, impairment of osteoblast function, mechanical stresses and increased production of joint fluid contribute to bone resorption and subsequent loosening of the implant. In addition, hypersensitivity and adverse reactions to metal debris may contribute to aseptic TKA failure, but should be determined more precisely. Patient activity level appears to be the most important factor when the long-term development of PPOL is considered. Surgical technique, implant design and material factors are the most important preventative factors, because they influence both the generation of wear debris and excessive mechanical stresses. New generations of bearing surfaces and designs for TKA should carefully address these important issues in extensive preclinical studies. Currently, there is little evidence that PPOL can be prevented by pharmacological intervention.

Prospective comparison study of one-year outcomes for all titanium total temporomandibular joint replacements in patients allergic to metal and cobalt-chromium replacement joints in patients not allergic to metal

We aimed to ascertain whether there are any early differences in outcome between all titanium temporomandibular joint (TMJ) prostheses in patients allergic to metal and standard cobalt-chromium prostheses in patients not allergic to metal. All patients who had primary TMJ prostheses placed with one-year follow-up between March 2003 and February 2011 were included. We reviewed the basic characteristics of patients. The outcome variables measured included disease, pain, mouth opening, and diet. A total of 55 patients with 77 joint replacements fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Forty patients had standard cobalt-chromium alloy (Co-Cr-Mo) prostheses (20 unilateral and 20 bilateral), and 15 had all titanium prostheses (13 unilateral and 2 bilateral). Osteoarthritis was the most common disease in both groups. There was significant improvement in pain score at reviews at 6 weeks (p=0.001) and 12 months (p=0.03). Values between groups were not significant (p=0.48 at 6 weeks, and p=0.10 at 1 year). Mouth opening in each group improved significantly with continued gains between assessments at 6 weeks and 12 months (p=0.001) but there were no significant differences between groups. Diet scores were significantly improved one year postoperatively in both groups (p=0.001), but differences between groups were not significant (p=0.90). At one year, outcomes for all titanium prostheses in patients allergic to metal were similarly favourable to those in patients who had no hypersensitivity to metal and had standard prostheses. No patient developed a hypersensitivity reaction, and no all titanium prosthesis failed during the one-year follow-up period.

No allergic reaction after TKA in a chrome-cobalt-nickel-sensitive patient: case report and review of the literature

Hypersensitivity to metallic implants remains relatively unpredictable and poorly understood. Although 20-25 % of total joint arthroplasty patients develop metal sensitivity, only a few highly susceptible persons (<1 %) exhibit symptoms. We present a case report of a fifty-two-year-old woman with a preoperatively documented metal allergy who underwent bilateral total knee arthroplasty using a titanium-niobium-coated implant on one side and a chrome-cobalt implant on the other side because of a logistics problem. At 2-year follow-up, no clinical symptoms of allergy or loosening of the implant were observed. Level of evidence IV.

Tissue reaction to the nickel implants in the guinea pigs

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was the assessment of local tolerance to nickel implants during 9 months observation in guinea pigs sensitized to nickel before implantation and non-sensitized ones.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Three groups of guinea pigs were included in the study: 10 sensitized to nickel by the guinea pig maximization test; 10 previously non-sensitized and 10 in control group. In 20 animals (except control group) the nickel implants were inserted in the muscle of the back. After 9 months of observation, the animals were patch-tested with 5% nickel sulfate. Also percentage of eosinophils in peripheral blood was examined. Next, the tissue surrounding the implant and skin from the area of patch tests were collected for the histological examination.

RESULTS

In 70% of previously sensitized animals, the patch test confirmed the sensitivity to nickel. In 60% of previously non-sensitized animals, a positive reaction to nickel occurred. The results of patch tests in control group were negative. Percentage of eosinophils in peripheral blood was fourfold higher in animals sensitized to nickel than in control group. In histological examination, in the tissue surrounding the implant a dissimilarity concerning the intensity of cellular infiltration was observed between animals previously allergic and non-allergic to nickel. In the 2 of 10 previously sensitized guinea pigs quite severe inflammatory reactions in the inside of connective tissue capsule were noted which may indicate a local allergic reaction. The histological images of skin collected from the positive patch test site corresponded with the typical allergic contact dermatitis.

CONCLUSIONS

Nickel implants may cause primary sensitization to nickel. The nature of the histological changes in the tissues around the implants in guinea pigs sensitized to nickel may correspond to an allergic reaction. The examination of percentage of eosinophils in blood of guinea pigs may be useful in assessing the allergenic activity of metal alloys containing nickel.