DKG statement on the use of metal alloy discs for patch testing in suspected intolerance to metal implants

S3 guidelines: Epicutaneous patch testing with contact allergens and drugs - Short version, Part 1

Epicutaneous patch testing is the diagnostic standard for the detection of allergic contact dermatitis. The present guidelines are aimed at residents and board-certified physicians in the fields of dermatology and allergology as well as other medical specialties involved in establishing the indication for patch testing and its execution in patients with contact dermatitis and other forms of delayed-type hypersensitivity. The target audience also includes other health care providers and insurance funds. Based on a systematic literature search and a formal consensus process (S3), the guidelines were developed by dermatologists in collaboration with pediatricians, occupational medicine physicians, nursing staff as well as patient representatives. The systematic methodological approach and appraisal of evidence upon which the recommendations are based are outlined in a separate method report that also contains evidence tables. The guidelines address general aspects of patch testing as well as medicolegal issues. The recommendations given relate to topics such as the indication for patch testing, informed patient consent, as well as the choice of test substances, test chambers and test site, duration of exposure, reading times and interpretation of test reactions. Furthermore, recommendations are provided with respect to endogenous and exogenous factors, specific patient groups (children, pregnant women, immunosuppressed individuals) as well as possible risks and adverse events associated with patch testing using contact allergens. Note: This publication is part 1 of the short version of the S3 guidelines for "Epicutaneous patch testing using contact allergens and drugs" (registry no. 013 - 018; date: March 20, 2019; valid until December 31, 2021). Part 2 of the short version will be published in the next issue. The long version of these guidelines can be accessed at www.awmf.org. The method report is available as online publication (https://www.awmf.org/leitlinien/detail/ll/013-018.html) and contains the evidence tables in its appendix.

Hypersensitivity to Orthopedic Implants: A Review of the Literature

Awareness of rare etiologies for implant failure is becoming increasingly important. In addition to the overall increase in joint arthroplasties, revision surgeries are projected to increase dramatically in the coming years, with volume increasing up to seven-fold between 2005 and 2030. The literature regarding the relationship between metal allergy and implant failure is controversial. It has proven difficult to determine whether sensitization is a cause or a consequence of implant failure. Testing patients with functional implants is not a clinically useful approach, as the rate of hypersensitivity is higher in implant recipients than in the general population, regardless of the status of the implant. As a result of the ineffectiveness of preoperative patch testing for predicting adverse outcomes, as well as the high cost of implementing such patch testing as standard procedure, most orthopedists and dermatologists agree that an alternative prosthesis should only be considered for patients with a history of allergy to a metal in the standard implant. In patients with a failed implant requiring revision surgery, hypersensitivity to an implant component should be considered in the differential diagnosis. Because a metal allergy to implant components is currently not commonly considered in the differential for joint failure in the orthopedic literature, there should be improved communication and collaboration between orthopedists and dermatologists when evaluating joint replacement patients with a presentation suggestive of allergy.

[Adverse reactions to metal orthopedic implants after knee arthroplasty]

Based on several clinical examples, the range of adverse or hypersensitive reactions to metal implants especially after total knee replacement are presented. In general, we found the patients to generally be women who present with pain, swelling, and local or generalized eczema. Some also present with early aseptic loosening mainly in the first 4 years after implantation. For these patients, a detailed allergy-specific history should be taken and a patch test should be performed; if necessary, blood ion levels should be evaluated to exclude cobaltism. Before revision surgery and exchange of the implant we always perform arthroscopic inspection to obtain biopsies for microbiology and histopathology. Using the Consensus Classification a good evaluation for planning revision with the different implant options is possible.