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

Preoperative Metal Allergy Testing for Pectus Excavatum Repair Does Not Effectively Identify Patients Who Develop Metal bar Allergy

BACKGROUND

Metal allergy following placement of a metal pectus bar for minimally invasive repair of pectus excavatum (MIRPE) is a rare complication with potentially significant morbidity. There is no consensus regarding preoperative metal allergy testing (MAT). This study aims to assess incidence of metal allergy and titanium bar use in tested and untested patients and trends in MAT with different approaches to MAT.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was performed on patients who underwent MIRPE from July 2009 to June 2022 at a single institution. During this time, MAT was performed routinely (RT; routine testing) and selectively (ST; selective testing).

RESULTS

The cohort included 741 patients for analysis. Metal bar allergy was documented in 1.3 % of all patients; the incidence was 1.3 % in patients with MAT and 1.4 % without MAT. The incidence of bar allergy was 1.1 % in the RT group and 1.6 % in the ST group. In the RT group, bar allergy occurred in 1.4 % (3/216) of patients with a negative MAT. In the ST group, bar allergy occurred in 1.2 % (2/164) of patients with a negative MAT and in 1.9 % (3/162) of untested patients with a stainless-steel bar. Titanium bar use was not significantly different between the RT and ST groups (18.3 % vs 16.3 %, p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The incidence of metal bar allergy after MIRPE was less than 2 %, and titanium bar use was not significantly different in routine and selective testing groups. MAT was not associated with a reduction in bar allergy, and its use remains unsupported.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Titanium niobium nitride knee implants are not inferior to chrome cobalt components for primary total knee arthroplasty at medium-term follow-up

BACKGROUND

Oxidized zirconium (Oxinium), titanium nitride (TiN) or titanium niobium nitride (TiNbN) coated implants became in recent years available for an increasing amount of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) systems. The hypothesis of this study was that the use of TiNbN-coated components would not lead to inferior results compared to conventional implants and that none of the metal hypersensitivity patients receiving TiNbN-coated implants would require revision for metal allergy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective study compared 53 Titanium Niobium Nitride coated TKA with 103 conventional chrome cobalt implants of the same design. Patients were evaluated at a minimal follow-up of 3 years.

RESULTS

No differences in clinical, radiological or patient-reported outcome measurements were observed between these groups. A survivorship of 96% without differences in revision rates was observed at medium-term follow-up of 6.5 years.

DISCUSSION

Metal allergy leading to contact or generalized dermatitis after TKA is very rare and usually linked to chrome or cobalt hypersensitivity. Nickel release from knee implants has not been shown to lead to cutaneous symptoms, but unexplained pain and swelling, peri-prosthetic osteolysis and component loosening remain potential issues not fully understood. The use of coated implants eliminates this factor from the diagnostic equation in case of postoperative dissatisfaction.

CONCLUSION

The use of titanium niobium nitride coated implants for primary knee osteoarthritis in self-reported metal hypersensitivity patients shows similar outcomes and survivorship rates as conventional chrome cobalt TKA, with no revisions for allergy at medium-term follow-up.

A Novel Multilayer-Coating for Total Knee Arthroplasty Implants is Safe - 10-Year Results From a Randomized-Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

This randomized-controlled trial was initiated to compare a new multilayer hypoallergenic coating system with the standard implant in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in terms of serum metal ion levels, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), and implant survival.

METHODS

A total of 120 patients were randomized to receive a coated or standard TKA of the same knee system. Serum metal ion levels (ie, cobalt, chromium, molybdenum, and nickel) as well as knee function (Oxford Knee Score, OKS), quality of life (SF-36), and physical activity (UCLA activity scale) were assessed before surgery and until the 10 year follow-up. A total of 24 patients died and there was one revision in each group. This resulted in 85 patients who completed follow-up.

RESULTS

Both groups demonstrated equally good improvement in PROs after surgery and constant score values thereafter. The majority of patients had metal ion serum levels below detection limit. Only cobalt levels demonstrated a slight increase in the standard group at 5- and 10-year follow-up. However, all patients displayed values below 3 μg/L. The cumulative 10-year survival was 98% in both groups.

CONCLUSION

There were no problems with the new coating system. No relevant increase in metal ion serum levels were measured. A slight increase in cobalt serum levels in the standard TKA was noted, thus not reaching critical values. The new coating system demonstrated equally good PROs as the standard TKA. Excellent implant survival was observed in both groups.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

I.

Poor Correlation Among Metal Hypersensitivity Testing Modalities and Inferior Patient-Reported Outcomes After Primary and Revision Total Knee Arthroplasties

Background

Metal allergy testing may influence clinical decision-making for patients undergoing a total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Limited data were found to examine the consistency of available testing modalities. This study compares different metal allergy test results and clinical outcomes after primary and revision TKAs in patients with and without metal hypersensitivity.

Methods

Primary (n = 28) and revision (n = 20) TKA patients receiving hypoallergenic implants for metal allergies diagnosed by skin patch testing (SPT), lymphocyte proliferation testing (LPT), or lymphocyte transformation testing (LTT) were retrospectively reviewed. The agreement between tests was assessed by percentage and kappa statistic within patients who used multiple testing modalities. Postoperative clinical outcomes of these patients were compared to those of patients without metal hypersensitivity matched by age (±5 years), body mass index (±5), gender, and follow-up duration (±2 years).

Results

SPT and LPT showed weak agreement for nickel and minimal agreement for cobalt. SPT and LTT showed minimal agreement for nickel; weak agreement for titanium, bone cement, vanadium, and zirconium; but strong agreement for chromium and cobalt. LPT and LTT agreement was weak. Compared to matched controls, metal hypersensitivity patients undergoing primary TKAs with hypoallergenic implants experienced less improvement in Knee Society Scores, Veterans RAND 12 physical component scores, and range of motion. Patients undergoing revision TKAs for multiple indications including metal hypersensitivity had worse clinical outcomes with significantly worse improvements in Knee Society functional scores compared to matched controls.

Conclusions

Metal allergy tests produce conflicting results. Hypersensitivity patients may experience inferior clinical outcomes even with hypoallergenic implants. Clinician awareness may influence the choice of testing and improve preoperative counseling of this patient population.

Clinical Results of Revision TKA in Patients With Presumed Metal and Cement Allergy

BACKGROUND

Metal and cement allergy affects a small subset of patients, causing severe pain and often systemic reaction after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Revision with ceramic-surfaced femoral components has been reported to resolve these symptoms of metal allergy, but no solution currently is available for patients with allergies to metal and bone cement.

METHODS

Five patients (5 knees) with documented metal allergy were revised with custom porous-coated ceramic femoral components (Magnesia-stabilized Zirconia) from January 2007 to January 2013. An additional 23 patients (23 knees) met inclusion criteria from 2007 to 2015, but because the ceramic implant was unavailable, they underwent different treatment based on their underlying allergy to metal, cement, or both. Inclusion criteria included the history of clinically documented severe metal allergy, severe pain, swelling, and effusion >1 year after TKA, negative workup for infection, loosening, and ligament imbalance. Knee Society scores were compared for each cohort.

RESULTS

Mean Knee Society scores for all 5 patients revised with custom cementless ceramic femoral components improved significantly for objective score (preoperative, 39 ± 5; most recent visit, 90 ± 2) and function score (preoperative, 33 ± 8; most recent visit 93 ± 4) (P < .0001). The 12 knees revised with off-the-shelf cemented ceramic-coated femoral components had similar results. The 7 unrevised knees (including 4 knees with allergy to metal and bone cement) and the 4 knees revised with standard CoCr femoral components did not improve and worsened over time.

CONCLUSION

Symptoms resolved in the 5 patients revised with custom ceramic implants and in the 12 patients revised with ceramic-coated components, but did not improve in the patients unrevised or revised with CoCr femoral components. Symptoms presumed to be associated with metal or cement allergy improve with the use of ceramic femoral surfaces, but patients who are allergic both to metals and bone cement would be candidates only for porous-coated ceramic implants fixed without bone cement.

[The use of knee prostheses with a hypoallergenic coating is safe in the medium term : A randomized controlled study]

BACKGROUND

In Germany, patients with contact allergy to implant components usually receive coated joint arthroplasties. Whether the treatment using these hypoallergenic implants achieves comparable results to standard treatment with implants consisting of cobalt-chromium alloy (CoCr) implants is controversially discussed internationally and has rarely been investigated in the mid-term.

OBJECTIVES

Are there differences in blood metal ion concentrations, knee function, and patient-reported outcomes (PROM) between coated and standard implants?

MATERIAL AND METHODS

118 patients were randomized to receive either a coated or a standard implant. Knee function as well as patient-reported outcome measures were assessed. Metal ion concentrations in blood samples were additionally determined for chromium, cobalt, molybdenum, and nickel, preoperatively, one and five years after surgery.

RESULTS

After five years, it was possible to analyse the results of 97 patients. In metal ion concentrations, as well as PRO, consistently good results were seen, without any difference between the groups. While in 13 patients there was an increase in chromium concentration above 2 µg/l one year after surgery, there was no measured value above 1 µg/l after five years.

CONCLUSION

In our study, similar mid-term results were detected for coated (TiNiN) and standard (CoCr)TKA. With respect to metal ion concentrations and PRO there are no disadvantages in using coated TKA.

No Clinical or Radiographic Differences Between Cemented Cobalt-Chromium and Titanium-Niobium Nitride Mobile-Bearing Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty

PURPOSE

This study aimed to compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of patients with positive patch tests undergoing a medial mobile-bearing titanium-niobium nitride (TiNbN) unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) to patients undergoing standard UKA (cobalt-chromium [CoCr] implants).

METHODS

Two successive groups of patients, amounting to a total of 246 individuals, who received Oxford (Zimmer-Biomet, Warsaw, Indiana, USA) UKA were included. The first group was composed of a series of 203 consecutive standard CoCr UKAs (Standard Group), while the second group comprised 43 consecutive hypoallergenic TiNbN UKAs (HA group). The patients of the second group had a positive epicutaneous patch test result for metals. Each patient was evaluated using the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and Knee Society Score (KSS) a day prior to the surgery (T 0) and at two consecutive follow-ups, namely T 1 (minimum follow-up of 12 months) and T 2 (minimum follow-up of 34 months). Radiographic measurements were performed at the final follow-up (T 2).

RESULTS

No statistical differences were noted between the two groups regarding demographic data (p > 0.05). No clinical or radiographic differences were found between the HA and standard groups at any follow-up (p > 0.05). A statistically significant improvement was found at any follow-up for both OKS and KSS (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

No clinical or radiographic differences between the hypoallergenic and standard cobalt-chromium groups at any follow-up were found, with a clinically significant improvement being experienced by both groups during the entire follow-up.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II-comparative prospective study.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s43465-021-00486-3.

Nickel Allergy of the Skin and Beyond

BACKGROUND

Hypersensitization to nickel is one of the most common contact allergies in the modern world and it is considered to be a major cause of contact dermatitis, especially for hand eczema.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this paper is to describe many faces of the nickel allergy and to find out different diagnostic, potential strategies for treatment and prevention in hypersensitized patients. A personal clinical experience with practical clinical cases of contact dermatitis to nickel has also been presented.

METHODS

Electronic databases on this topic was carried out using PubMed-Medline.

RESULTS

The literature review identified many articles reporting for nickel contact allergy and pointing the metal as number one allergen in the frequency of positive skin patch test reactions in a large population worldwide. Herein, a summary of the current understanding and evidence on nickel allergy with practical approach and proposed recommendations to the dermatologist, general practitioner, and the allergist were prepared.

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of nickel allergy represents an important socio-economical and health issue. Metal is one of the most common sensitizing agents worldwide. The morbidity due to this metal represents the allergic contact dermatitis and it is constantly growing in many countries. There are also cases of systemic allergic contact dermatitis, where they could be easily misdiagnosed as adverse drug reactions, which lead to delay of the correct diagnosis and inappropriate treatment.

Sensitization to Implant Components Is Associated with Joint Replacement Failure: Identification and Revision to Nonallergenic Hardware Improves Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Over 90% of one million annual US joint replacements are highly successful. Nonetheless, 10% do poorly owing to infection or mechanical issues. Many implant components are sensitizers, and sensitization could also contribute to implant failure.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the prevalence of implant sensitization in joint failure patients, their clinical characteristics, and implant revision outcomes. We hypothesized that sensitized patients would improve when revised with nonallergenic materials.

METHODS

We prospectively enrolled 105 joint failure patients referred by orthopedic surgeons who had already excluded infection or mechanical causes. Patients provided informed consent, completed a history and physical examination, patch testing to metals and bone cement, and a nickel lymphocyte proliferation test. A study coordinator was able to contact 64% of patients (n = 67) 9 to 12 months later to evaluate outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 59% were sensitized to an implant component: 32% to metal and 37% to bone cement. The nickel lymphocyte proliferation test was 60% sensitive and 96% specific in diagnosing nickel sensitization. Most sensitized subjects reported no or uncertain histories of reactions to a specific material. Implant sensitized patients were younger and reported previous eczema, joint itching, and implant loosening. By 9 to 12 months later, most patients with a revised implant (revised) described significant improvement (16 of 22 revised for sensitization [P = .0003] vs 9 of 13 revised without sensitization [P = .047]) compared with patients without implant revision). All revised patients with sensitization used components to which they were not sensitized. Pain (P = .001), swelling (P = .035), and instability (P = .006) were significantly reduced in the revised sensitized group.

CONCLUSIONS

Sensitization to implant components is an important cause of unexplained joint replacement failure. Joint revisions based on sensitization information resulted in significant improvements.

Metal Hypersensitivity in Joint Arthroplasty

Metal hypersensitivity in joint arthroplasty is a very controversial topic with limited evidence. With increasing numbers of joint replacements being done annually, a clear understanding of the pathogenesis, clinical picture, preimplant screening, postimplant workup, and treatment plan is crucial. This review article looked at all the available evidence regarding metal hypersensitivity and summarized the key findings. An algorithm was also proposed for preimplant screening, postimplant workup, and management.

Ten-year outcomes of a nitrided Ti-6Al-4V titanium alloy fixed-bearing total knee replacement with a highly crosslinked polyethylene-bearing in patients with metal allergy

BACKGROUND

Metal hypersensitivity in patients with a total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a rare condition and a very controversial topic. Despite the lack of data concerning the real effective impact of allergy on TKA failures, most of the manufactures offer the choice of 'non-allergenic' implants both for primary and revision TKA, some of which provide the same designs and surgical techniques as the conventional ones. Only a few studies are available on outcomes on these 'hypersensitivity-friendly' implants and even fewer specifically on allergic patients with a mid- to long-term follow-up.

METHODS

Between 2007 and 2015, we enrolled 72 patients (57 females, 15 males), who underwent TKA treated with a non-allergenic posterior-stabilized (PS) total knee implant for a declared and proven metal allergy. Patients were followed clinically and radiographically for a mean 10 years of follow-up.

RESULTS

With revision as an endpoint the Kaplan-Meier survival estimate showed a survival rate of 97.2% at five years and 95.1% at 10 years. Significant improvements in range of motion (ROM), Knee Society Scoring (KSS) and Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) knee scores were registered at final follow-up (P < 0.0001). At final follow-up validated Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) showed the following scores: Oxford Knee Score (OKS) 42.1, EQ5D 0.80, EQ VAS 80.1, Forgotten Joint Score 71.2.

CONCLUSIONS

This nitrided Ti-6Al-4V titanium alloy fixed-bearing total knee replacement with a highly crosslinked polyethylene-bearing showed interesting results and survival rates in patients with metal allergy at mid- to long-term follow-up.

Early Outcomes of an Alternative Bearing Surface in Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty in Patients with Self-reported Metal Allergy

Background

Most implants for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) are comprised of alloys that contain nickel. Controversy exists whether metal allergies produce negative effects and affect clinical outcomes. The purpose of this study was to retrospectively review a minimum 2-year follow-up with an ion-bombarded titanium TKA implant in patients with reported metal sensitivity.

Methods

A retrospective review of patients who underwent primary TKA with the ion-bombarded titanium Vanguard (Zimmer Biomet, Warsaw, IN) implant with 2-year minimum follow-up was performed from 2008 through 2017. The query revealed 346 patients (451 knees) with minimum 2-year follow-up. The mean age was 64.7 years, the mean body mass index was 35.1 kg/m², and 95% of patients were women.

Results

The mean follow-up was 4.6 years. The mean range of motion improved from 109° to 112° (P = .03), University of California Los Angeles activity scale from 4.1 to 5.1 (P < .001), Knee Society Clinical scores from 36 to 89 (P < .001), and Knee Society Functional scores from 48 to 73 (P < .001). There were 5 (1.1%) revisions: 2 infections (2-staged exchange), 1 tibial revision for aseptic loosening after a fall, and 2 bearing exchanges for instability. Other surgeries were open reduction internal fixation of periprosthetic fracture, 1 arthroscopic release of snapping popliteus, and 4 local wound incision and debridement (2 superficial infections and 2 nonhealing wounds). Manipulation under anesthesia was required in 27 (6%) patients.

Conclusions

These early results are encouraging for the use of alternative metal titanium alloy implants in metal-sensitive patients undergoing primary TKA. At 4.6 years of mean follow-up, patients had substantial improvement in the range of motion and clinical outcomes with a low frequency of revision.

Nickel allergy to orthopaedic implants: A review and case series

Many of the metals used in orthopaedic surgical implants are immunologically active and can cause hypersensitivity reactions. Most of these metal hypersensitivity (MHS) reactions are type IV/delayed-type hypersensitivity reactions. The most common form of all metal hypersensitivity reactions is allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) caused by nickel. The purpose of this review is to examine the evidence regarding hypersensitivity to orthopaedic implants and provide current recommendations for evaluating these patients. We report on four case examples of patients where it was determined that metal allergy led to complications related to surgery. The most common symptoms for patients with MHS-associated failures are localized soft tissue reaction including delayed wound healing and/or recurrent wound issues. The best way to avoid postoperative issues is to routinely ask patients prior to surgery if they have any known MHS including problems with cosmetic jewelry. If this is known before surgery, titanium or carbon fiber implants should be used for fracture fixation and arthroplasty implantation choice should be modified based on the specific arthroplasty performed. MHS-associated failures are a diagnosis of exclusion and must be contemplated after judicious workup of localized soft tissue reaction including delayed wound healing and/or recurrent wound issues.

The effect of patient-reported metal allergies on the outcomes of shoulder arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Although literature exists regarding hip and knee arthroplasty outcomes in patients with skin allergy to metals, there is minimal information about skin allergy implications on shoulder arthroplasty outcomes. The purpose of this study was to determine the results, complications, and failure rate among patients with a self-reported metal allergy undergoing shoulder arthroplasty.

METHODS

Fifty-two shoulder arthroplasties were performed at our Institution in 43 patients with self-reported metal allergies. Forty primary and 12 revision shoulder arthroplasties were performed using anatomic (30) and reverse (22) components. Retrospective chart review was performed to determine metal allergy history, implant composition, pain, motion, and complications. Radiographs were reviewed to determine mechanical failure rates. Average follow-up time was 65 months.

RESULTS

Allergies reported included nickel (37), cobalt chrome (4), copper (2), zinc (1), titanium (1), gold (1), and nonspecific metal allergy (8); 8 patients reported multiple metal allergies. All components implanted in patients with nickel allergies contained nickel. At most recent follow-up, pain was rated as none or mild in 88% of shoulders. Active elevation improved from 80° to 141° and external rotation from 24° to 52°. Two revisions were performed for glenoid loosening (3.8%); both were revision cases with substantial glenoid bone loss. One patient with mild pain had a radiographically loose glenoid component 12 years after anatomic shoulder arthroplasty.

CONCLUSION

Results from this study suggest that shoulder arthroplasty in patients with self-reported metal allergy provides satisfactory pain relief and improved range of motion with low revision rates.

Utility of Patch Testing and Lymphocyte Transformation Testing in the Evaluation of Metal Allergy in Patients with Orthopedic Implants

Total joint arthroplasties are increasingly common orthopedic procedures performed throughout the United States. Implant failure after these procedures occurs due to a number of causes such as infection or mechanical problems, with metal hypersensitivity being an area of growing interest. The nature and mechanism of a causative relationship between metal hypersensitivity and implant failure have been unclear as it is not known whether implant failure occurs due to a previous metal allergy or metal allergy results from secondary sensitization via metal exposure in existing failing implants. Overall, there appears to be growing support and evidence for metal-hypersensitive patients having worse outcomes with regard to total hip and knee arthroplasties. However, there are conflicting recommendations (outside of Nuss procedures) for pre-implant testing for metal hypersensitivity as testing has not consistently been shown to change patient outcomes.

Unicondylar knee arthroplasty using cobalt-chromium implants in patients with self-reported cutaneous metal hypersensitivity

Aims

The treatment of patients with allergies to metal in total joint arthroplasty is an ongoing debate. Possibilities include the use of hypoallergenic prostheses, as well as the use of standard cobalt-chromium (CoCr) alloy. This non-designer study was performed to evaluate the clinical outcome and survival rates of unicondylar knee arthroplasty (UKA) using a standard CoCr alloy in patients reporting signs of a hypersensitivity to metal.

Patients and Methods

A consecutive series of patients suitable for UKA were screened for symptoms of metal hypersensitivity by use of a questionnaire. A total of 82 patients out of 1737 patients suitable for medial UKA reporting cutaneous metal hypersensitivity to cobalt, chromium, or nickel were included into this study and prospectively evaluated to determine the functional outcome, possible signs of hypersensitivity, and short-term survivorship at a minimum follow-up of 1.5 years.

Results

At a mean follow-up of three years (1.5 to 5.7), no local or systemic symptoms of hypersensitivity to metal were observed. One patient underwent revision surgery to a bicondylar prosthesis due to a tibial periprosthetic fracture resulting in a survival rate of 98.8% (95% confidence interval (CI) 91.7 to 99.8; number at risk, 28) at three years with the endpoint of revision for any reason and a survival rate of 97.6% (95% CI 90.6 to 99.3; number at risk, 29) for the endpoint of all reoperations. Clinical outcome was good to excellent with a mean Oxford Knee Score of 42.5 (sd 2.5; 37 to 48).

Conclusion

This study is the first demonstrating clinical results and survival analysis of UKA using a CoCr alloy in patients with a history of metal hypersensitivity. Functional outcome and survivorship are on a high-level equivalent to those reported for UKA in patients without a history of metal hypersensitivity. No serious local or systemic symptoms of metal hypersensitivity could be detected, and no revision surgery was performed due to an adverse reaction to metal ions.

Metal allergy in total-joint arthroplasty: Case report and literature review

RATIONALE

Due to the low incidence and lack of effective diagnostic measures for the diagnosis of metal allergy in patients undergoing total joint arthroplasty (TJA), diagnosis relies mainly on the exclusion of other causes, in particular infection. It remains a relatively unpredictable and poorly understood cause of implant failure. At present, skin patch testing, leukocyte migration inhibition test (LMIT) and lymphocyte transformation tests (LTT) are being commonly used to assess metal hypersensitivity.This report presents both a case and literature review.

PATIENT CONCERNS

A 61-year-old female patient experienced continuous swelling and pain in the right knee joint for 9 months after a right-side total knee arthroplasty (TKA).

DIAGNOSES

We believe this is the case report of metal allergy in TKA. The following were the reasons for this. First, no definite symptoms of infection during revision arthroplasty were observed, but with obvious hyperplasia of synovium. Furthermore, a frozen biopsy revealed an extremely low neutrophil count, which was considered to be caused by chronic inflammation. Second, the results of repeated post-operation reexaminations indicate a clear increase in the number of eosinophils, while no bacteria were found in the tissue bacterial smear performed during the operation. Third, improvements were clearly observed in the patient following synovectomy, revision of the polyethylene insert and anti-anaphylactic treatment.

INTERVENTIONS

The patient underwent synovectomy, revision of the polyethylene insert and anti-anaphylactic treatment.

OUTCOMES

The patient's right knee remained mildly swollen; however, the pain has been relieved significantly. The range of motion could achieve 0 degrees of extension and 90 degrees of flexion.

LESSONS

No consensus has been reached about the best diagnostic criteria for this disease, and most physicians would consider it to be a possibility when other diseases including periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) have been excluded. Although this case followed the same course, the outcome following synovectomy and anti-anaphylactic treatment further confirmed our hypothesis.

Metal hypersensitivity in patients with orthopaedic implant complications-A retrospective clinical study

BACKGROUND

Hypersensitivity to metals as a cause of implant-related complications has been a subject of controversy. Projections indicate an increase in the frequency of joint replacements of between 300% and 600% by the year 2030; therefore, this issue is of considerable interest.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate sensitization to implant materials in patients with implant-related complications, to identify allergens, and to clarify whether hypersensitivity is a relevant cause.

METHODS

Patients with implant-related complications or a positive history of contact allergy and planned total joint replacements referred for allergological investigation between 2004 and 2017 were retrospectively analysed.

RESULTS

In total, 311 patients were included. A positive patch test reaction to a metal was seen in 64.4% of preoperative patients and in 54.6% of patients with implant-related complications. Common alloy metals such as cobalt, chromium and titanium gave positive reactions in up to 2.9% of patients with implant-related complications. None of the patients with skin changes had a positive patch test reaction to an implant metal.

CONCLUSION

Other factors, such as the type of replaced joint and mechanical stress, seem to be more relevant for implant-related complications. Sensitization to metals or other materials seems to rarely play a role, and is overestimated.

Patch Testing for Evaluation of Hypersensitivity to Implanted Metal Devices: A Perspective From the American Contact Dermatitis Society

The American Contact Dermatitis Society recognizes the interest in the evaluation and management of metal hypersensitivity reactions. Given the paucity of robust evidence with which to guide our practices, we provide reasonable evidence and expert opinion-based guidelines for clinicians with regard to metal hypersensitivity reaction testing and patient management. Routine preoperative evaluation in individuals with no history of adverse cutaneous reactions to metals or history of previous implant-related adverse events is not necessary. Patients with a clear self-reported history of metal reactions should be evaluated by patch testing before device implant. Patch testing is only 1 element in the assessment of causation in those with postimplantation morbidity. Metal exposure from the implanted device can cause sensitization, but a positive metal test does not prove symptom causality. The decision to replace an implanted device must include an assessment of all clinical factors and a thorough risk-benefit analysis by the treating physician(s) and patient.

Vanadium allergy following total knee arthroplasty

Allergic reactions to metals following joint arthroplasty represent a rare and poorly understood phenomenon. Much is still unknown regarding the natural history of this complication, and how it can best be prevented and managed. We present a case of a 68-year-old woman who underwent a left total knee arthroplasty for treatment of osteoarthritis. After an initial uneventful postoperative course, she developed a troublesome erythematous rash both around the incision site and over her trunk. Blood testing revealed no evidence of infection and clinically her prosthesis was functioning well. Skin patch testing revealed positive results for vanadium (+) and palladium (+). Her cutaneous symptoms are currently being managed conservatively and have shown a partial response to topical steroids. Revision surgery remains a long-term treatment option should conservative therapy fail; however, it would require a custom-made prosthesis as no standard tibial component is free from vanadium.

Modularity in Total Hip Arthroplasty: Benefits, Risks, Mechanisms, Diagnosis, and Management

Modular implants are currently widely used in total hip arthroplasty because they give surgeons versatility during the operation, allow for easier revision surgery, and can be adjusted to better fit the anatomy of the specific patient. However, modular implants, specifically those that have metal-on-metal junctions, are susceptible to crevice and fretting corrosion. This can ultimately cause implant failure, inflammation, and adverse local tissue reaction, among other possible side effects. Surgeons should be aware of the possibility of implant corrosion and should follow a set of recommended guidelines to systematically diagnose and treat patients with corroded implants. Ultimately, surgeons will continue to use modular implants because of their widespread benefits. However, more research is needed to determine how to minimize corrosion and the negative side effects that have been associated with modular junctions in total hip arthroplasty. [Orthopedics. 2017; 40(6):355-366.].

Making Sense of Metal Allergy and Hypersensitivity to Metallic Implants in Relation to Hand Surgery

All metals implanted into a biological system undergo some degree of corrosion depending upon its composition. The electrochemical process of corrosion produces free metal ions, which may activate the host's immune system through a variety of mechanisms. Whereas dermal metal hypersensitivity is common, affecting 10% to 15% of the population, the immune reaction from implanted metals is much less common (< 0.1%), but has been associated with metal allergy and hypersensitivity producing a multitude of patient symptoms. Superficial symptoms may be mild to severe forms of dermatitis, urticaria, pruritus, and vasculitis, whereas deep sequelae include metallosis-related pseudotumor, implant loosening, and joint stiffness. Currently, there are clinical tests to evaluate patients for metal hypersensitivity, but there is little agreement regarding the ideal timing and clinical situation prompting the work-up of a patient for a metal allergy or hypersensitivity. An understanding of the epidemiology, etiology, basic science, diagnostic testing, and treatment of patients with suspected metal allergy, as it pertains to the current literature, will aid orthopedic and plastic surgeons of all subspecialties in the management of patients requiring metallic implants.

Metal hypersensitivity after knee arthroplasty: fact or fiction?

Background and aim of the work: Hypersensitivity to metals in the general population has an incidence of about 15%, and in rising also for the higher number of joint replacements in the last decades. Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA) represents the most performed orthopaedic procedure during last years, and it seems to be particularly associated with sensitization after surgery. On the other hand, there is a rising amount of patients with painful but well implanted and functioning TKAs: in certain cases, after the exclusion of the most frequent causes of failure, a condition of hypersensitivity may be found, and a revision with anallergic implants is mandatory. The present study is a review of the potential problems related to hypersensitivity in TKA, its possible diagnostic procedures, and the surgical options to date available. Methods: Medical history, patch testing, and other specific laboratory assays are useful to assess a status of metals hypersensitivity before surgery in subjects undergoing a knee replacement, or even after TKA in patients complaining pain in otherwise well implanted and aligned prostheses. However, few groups worlwide deal with such condition, and all proposed diagnostic protocols may be considered still today conjectural. On the other hand, these represent the most updated knowledge of this condition, and may be useful for both the patient and the orthopaedic surgeon. Once assessed a possible or ascertained allergy to metals, several options are available for primary andr revision knee surgery, in order to avoid the risk of hypersensitivity. Results: A review of the recent publications on this topic and an overview of the related aspects has been made to understand a condition to date considered negligible. Conclusions: Hypersensitivity to metals has not to be nowadays considered a “fiction”, but rather a possible preoperative risk or a postoperative cause of failure of TKA. Crucial is the information of patients and the medical history, associated in suspect cases to laboratory testings. Today in the market several knee implants are available and safe for allergic patients undergoing TKA. (www.actabiomedica.it)

Metal hypersensitivity after knee arthroplasty: fact or fiction?

BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE WORK

Hypersensitivity to metals in the general population has an incidence of about 15%, and in rising also for the higher number of joint replacements in the last decades. Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA) represents the most performed orthopaedic procedure during last years, and it seems to be particularly associated with sensitization after surgery. On the other hand, there is a rising amount of patients with painful but well implanted and functioning TKAs: in certain cases, after the exclusion of the most frequent causes of failure, a condition of hypersensitivity may be found, and a revision with anallergic implants is mandatory. The present study is a review of the potential problems related to hypersensitivity in TKA, its possible diagnostic procedures, and the surgical options to date available.

METHODS

Medical history, patch testing, and other specific laboratory assays are useful to assess a status of metals hypersensitivity before surgery in subjects undergoing a knee replacement, or even after TKA in patients complaining pain in otherwise well implanted and aligned prostheses. However, few groups worlwide deal with such condition, and all proposed diagnostic protocols may be considered still today conjectural. On the other hand, these represent the most updated knowledge of this condition, and may be useful for both the patient and the orthopaedic surgeon. Once assessed a possible or ascertained allergy to metals, several options are available for primary andr revision knee surgery, in order to avoid the risk of hypersensitivity.

RESULTS

A review of the recent publications on this topic and an overview of the related aspects has been made to understand a condition to date considered negligible.

CONCLUSIONS

Hypersensitivity to metals has not to be nowadays considered a "fiction", but rather a possible preoperative risk or a postoperative cause of failure of TKA. Crucial is the information of patients and the medical history, associated in suspect cases to laboratory testings. Today in the market several knee implants are available and safe for allergic patients undergoing TKA.

Allergy in Total Knee Replacement. Does It Exist?: Review Article

BACKGROUND

There is little data on whether preexisting allergies to implant materials and bone cement have an impact on the outcome of TKA.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

This review article analyzes the current literature to evaluate the prevalence and importance of metal and cement allergies for patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty.

METHODS

A review of the literature was performed using the following search criteria: "knee," "arthroplasty," and "allergy" as well as "knee," "arthroplasty," and "hypersensitivity."

RESULTS

One hundred sixteen articles were identified on PubMed, Seventy articles could be excluded by reviewing the title and abstract leaving 46 articles to be included for this review. The majority of the studies cited patch testing as the gold standard for screening and diagnosis of hypersensitivity following TKA. There is consensus that patients with self-reported allergies against metals or bone cement and positive patch test should be treated with hypoallergenic materials or cementless TKA. Treatment options include the following: coated titanium or cobalt-chromium implants, ceramic, or zirconium oxide implants.

CONCLUSION

Allergies against implant materials and bone cement are rare. Patch testing is recommended for patients with self-reported allergies. The use of special implants is recommended for patients with a confirmed allergy.

Availability of Total Knee Arthroplasty Implants for Metal Hypersensitivity Patients

Purpose

To provide information on the type of "hypersensitivity-friendly" components available for primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in the current market.

Materials and Methods

Implant manufactures were identified using the 2013 National Joint Registries of the United Kingdom and Sweden and contacted to obtain information about the products they offer for patients with metal hypersensitivity.

Results

Information on 23 TKA systems was provided by 13 implant manufacturers. Of these, 15 systems had options suitable for metal hypersensitivity patients. Two types of "hypersensitivity-friendly" components were identified: 10 implants were cobalt chrome prostheses with a "hypersensitivity-friendly" outer coating and 5 implants were made entirely from non-cobalt chrome alloys.

Conclusions

The results of this study suggest that several hypersensitivity TKA options exist, some of which provide the same designs and surgical techniques as the conventional implants. The information in this study can guide TKA surgeons in making informed choices about implants and identifying implants that could be examined in future controlled studies comparing outcomes between "hypersensitivity-friendly" and conventional implants.

[The Berlin diagnostic algorithm for painful knee TKA]

BACKGROUND

Approximately 20% of patients are unsatisfied with their postoperative results after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Main causes for revision surgery are periprosthetic infection, aseptic loosing, instability and malalignment. In rare cases secondary progression of osteoarthritis of the patella, periprosthetic fractures, extensor mechanism insufficiency, polyethylene wear and arthrofibrosis can cause the necessity for a reintervention. Identifying the reason for a painful knee arthroplasty can be very difficult, but is a prerequisite for a successful therapy.

AIM

The aim of this article is to provide an efficient analysis of the painful TKA by using a reproducible algorithm.

DISCUSSION

Basic building blocks are the medical history with the core issues of pain character and the time curve of pain concerning surgery. This is followed by the basic diagnostics, including clinical, radiological, and infectiological investigations. Unique failures like periprosthetic infection or aseptic loosening can thereby be diagnosed in the majority of cases. If the cause of pain is not clearly attributable using the basic diagnostics tool, further infectiological investigation or diagnostic imaging are necessary. If the findings are inconsistent, uncommon causes of symptoms, such as extra-articular pathologies, causalgia or arthrofibrosis, have to be considered. In cases of ongoing unexplained pain, a revision is not indicated. These patients should be re-evaluated after a period of time.

No Increased Risk of Knee Arthroplasty Failure in Patients With Positive Skin Patch Testing for Metal Hypersensitivity: A Matched Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

It is unclear whether a positive skin patch test for metal allergy in patients with skin hypersensitivity to metals is associated with an increased risk of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) failure. Our aim was to determine whether patients with a history of metal allergy who had a positive skin patch test (SPT+) had worse outcomes after primary TKA compared with those with a negative skin patch test and compared with controls.

METHODS

Over 12 years, 127 patients underwent 161 TKA after skin patch testing (SPT; 56 were positive). Cases were matched by age, gender, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, implant type, and implant manufacturer to 161 control knee arthroplasties without any prior history of metal allergy and no SPT. Median follow-up was 5.3 years. Differences in outcome measures were assessed between groups.

RESULTS

Patients with a SPT+ to metal did not have a higher complication, reoperation, or revision rates compared with patients with a SPT- and matched controls. Survivorship free of revision at 5 years was 98.1% for SPT+; 100% for SPT-; 97.6% for SPT+ controls, 99.0% for SPT- controls. There was no statistically significant difference in postoperative pain between SPT+ and SPT- patients and matched controls.

CONCLUSION

This study was designed to evaluate the effect of metal hypersensitivity on TKA outcomes and the role of SPT in patients before TKA. In this study, a SPT+ for metals was of little practical value in predicting the midterm outcome after TKA and cannot be strongly recommended as a method to guide the selection of implant type.

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.

Titanium niobium nitride knee implants are not inferior to chrome cobalt components for primary total knee arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Metal allergy in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is still a controversial topic. Oxinium, ceramic or titanium niobium nitride (TiNbN) coated implants are available for some knee systems. The hypothesis of this study was that the use of TiNbN-coated components would not lead to inferior results compared to conventional implants and that none of the allergic patients receiving TiNbN-coated implants would require revision for metal allergy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study was a retrospective, 2 to 1 matched pairs study with 40 titanium niobium nitride-coated TKA compared with 80 conventional cobalt chrome implants. No demographic differences between these groups were observed. The mean follow-up for this study was 2 years.

RESULTS

No differences in clinical, radiological, or patient-reported outcome measurements were observed between the two groups. No patients have been revised at this short- to medium-term outcome evaluation.

DISCUSSION

Metal allergy leading to contact or systemic dermatitis is especially linked to chrome and cobalt allergy. Nickel allergy because of knee implants rarely gives cutaneous symptoms, but could potentially lead to peri-prosthetic osteolysis and loosening. The use of titanium niobium nitride implants in case of a positive history of metal allergy could avoid this devastating complication.

CONCLUSION

The use of titanium niobium nitride-coated implants for primary knee osteoarthritis shows similar clinical and radiological outcomes as conventional TKA without revision for loosening at short- to medium-term follow-up. Level of evidence Level IV study.

Painful knee arthroplasty: current practice

Primary total knee arthroplasty is the treatment for end-stage arthritis of the knee; in the last years, it is becoming more common and reliable, due to technical and implant improvement. With larger implant rates, the overall complications will increase and pain is the most common sign of implant failure. Pain can be related to a lot of different clinical findings, and the surgeon has to be aware of the various etiologies that can lead to failure. Pain does not always mean revision, and the patient has to be fully evaluated to have a correct diagnosis; if surgery is performed for the wrong reason, this will surely lead to a failure. In this paper, the authors revised the more common causes of failure that can have a painful onset proposing an approach for diagnosis and treatment.

Patellofemoral Joint Replacement and Nickel Allergy: An Unusual Presentation

Metal allergy is an unusual complication of joint replacement that may cause aseptic loosening and necessitate joint revision surgery. We present the case of nickel allergy causing aseptic loosening following patellofemoral joint replacement (PFJR) in a 54-year-old male. Joint revision surgery to a nickel-free total knee replacement was performed with good results. Our literature review shows that there is no evidence to guide the management of metal allergy in PFJR. The evidence from studies of total knee replacement is limited to retrospective case series and case reports and gives contradictory recommendations. The optimal management strategy for metal allergy in PFJR is not clear. We recommend allergy testing in patients with history of metal allergy and use of an allergen-free implant in those with positive tests. As there is no gold standard test to establish metal allergy, the choice of test should be guided by availability and recommendation from the local unit of dermatology and allergy testing. We recommend investigation for metal allergy in patients with implant loosening where other causes have been excluded.

Shoulder arthroplasty in the patient with metal hypersensitivity

The in vivo effects of metal hypersensitivity remain a topic of much debate. At the core of this debate is the possible, although still hotly contested, link between metal hypersensitivity and poorly functioning or failing implants. There are multiple studies on this topic in the hip and knee arthroplasty literature, but the applicability of this experience to shoulder arthroplasty remains unclear. Although how often metal hypersensitivity affects shoulder arthroplasty patients remains uncertain, a multitude of case reports have implicated metallic implants as a source of local and systemic allergic reactions. We recommend a cautious approach to patients with a history of metal hypersensitivity, including a careful evaluation of suspected metal hypersensitivities in all patients undergoing shoulder arthroplasty. If available, we recommend a metallic implant with low to no nickel content in patients with metal hypersensitivity. Given the large and increasing, number of total shoulder arthroplasty procedures and the high percentage of the population having a known or suspected metal hypersensitivity, this review is intended to guide and educate the shoulder surgeon in the evaluation and treatment of this patient population and to point out the areas where evidence-based recommendations are lacking.

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.

Patients with intolerance reactions to total knee replacement: combined assessment of allergy diagnostics, periprosthetic histology, and peri-implant cytokine expression pattern

We performed a combined approach to identify suspected allergy to knee arthroplasty (TKR): patch test (PT), lymphocyte transformation test (LTT), histopathology (overall grading; T- and B-lymphocytes, macrophages, and neutrophils), and semiquantitative Real-time-PCR-based periprosthetic inflammatory mediator analysis (IFNγ, TNFα, IL1-β, IL-2, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, IL17, and TGFβ). We analyzed 25 TKR patients with yet unexplained complications like pain, effusion, and reduced range of motion. They consisted of 20 patients with proven metal sensitization (11 with PT reactions; 9 with only LTT reactivity). Control specimens were from 5 complicated TKR patients without metal sensitization, 12 OA patients before arthroplasty, and 8 PT patients without arthroplasty. Lymphocytic infiltrates were seen and fibrotic (Type IV membrane) tissue response was most frequent in the metal sensitive patients, for example, in 81% of the PT positive patients. The latter also had marked periprosthetic IFNγ expression. 8/9 patients with revision surgery using Ti-coated/oxinium based implants reported symptom relief. Our findings demonstrate that combining allergy diagnostics with histopathology and periprosthetic cytokine assessment could allow us to design better diagnostic strategies.

Clinical and diagnostic challenges of metal implant allergy using the example of orthopaedic surgical implants: Part 15 of the Series Molecular Allergology

The focus of this review are allergic reactions to orthopaedic-surgical metal implants. The spectrum of metal implant associated potential allergic reactions encompasses eczema, impaired wound and fracture healing, infection-mimicking reactions, effusions, pain and loosening. Nickel, cobalt and chromium seem to be the predominant eliciting allergens. Despite the growing number of respective publications the topic „metal implant allergy“ remains a diagnostic challenge. Initially, differential diagnoses should always be excluded in cooperation with surgery collegues. It is recommended to perform a combined evaluation of medical history, clinical findings, patch testing and histology. The lymphocyte transformation test (LTT) can indicate metal sensitization, but it needs careful interpretation. Allergists can provide a substantial contribution to this interdisciplinary topic.

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.

[Characteristics of 200 patients with suspected implant allergy compared to 100 symptom-free arthroplasty patients]

BACKGROUND

Data on implant allergies are incomplete; therefore, we compared the data on allergy history, patch test (PT) and lymphocyte transformation test (LTT) results in a patient series from the Munich implant allergy outpatient department with symptom-free arthroplasty patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this study 200 arthroplasty patients with complaints involving the prosthesis (130 female, 187 knee and 13 hip prostheses) and in parallel 100 symptom-free patients (75 female, 47 knee and 53 hip prostheses) were investigated. A questionnaire-aided history including implant type, cementing, intolerance of dental materials, atopy, cutaneous metal intolerance (CMI) and PT, including a standard series with Ni, Co, Cr, seven bone cement components, including gentamicin and benzoyl peroxide and LTT for Ni, Co and Cr.

RESULTS

In the knee arthroplasty patients with complaints 9.1% showed dental material intolerance, 23.5% atopy, 25.7% CMI, 18.2% metal allergies, 7.4% gentamicin allergy and 27.8% positive metal LTT (mostly to Ni). In symptom-free patients 0% showed dental material intolerance, 19.1% atopy, 12.8% CMI, 12.8% metal allergy, 0% gentamicin allergy and 17% positive metal LTT.

CONCLUSIONS

Characteristics of the patients with complaints were increased intolerance of dental materials, higher rates of atopy, CMI, metal and gentamicin allergy and LTT reactivity.

Total knee arthroplasty in patients with hypersensitivity to metals

PURPOSE

We evaluated the risk of hypersensitivity to metals in a population of consecutive subjects undergoing a total knee arthroplasty (TKA). We also proposed a diagnostic pathway to address any sensitivity to metals. We finally presented the mid-term outcomes of a full non allergenic knee implant.

METHODS

We developed a protocol based on the medical history, patch testing, and on specific laboratory assays, in order to assess a sensitization to metals. Twenty-four patients (25 knees) with referred or suspected allergy to metals were found in more than 1,000 treated patients, with a mean age of 72.9 years. We proceeded to a radiologic study, a clinical evaluation by the visual analogic scale (VAS), and Knee Society rating system (KSS). In all cases a full anallergic cemented implant with an oxidized zirconium femoral component and an all-polyethylene tibial baseplate was chosen.

RESULTS

Four (16.6%) of the 24 patients were considered to be hypersensitive to metals. The mean follow-up was 79.2 months. No patient reported any reaction related to hypersensitivity or complications after TKA. The VAS improved from a mean preoperative value of 7.2 to 1.8 postoperatively; the KSS and the functional score increased from 38 to 91 points and from 39 to 88 points, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

We consider careful research of medical history for metals hypersensitivity crucial, and we perform patch testing and lab assays in case of doubtful sensitization. The choice of a modern hypoallergenic implant may prevent any kind of potential reactions.