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

Orthopedic Dermatopathies: Skin Manifestations in Orthopedic Conditions

Orthopedic diseases often present with dermatological symptoms that require prompt identification for appropriate treatment. Understanding these dermatologic presentations is crucial for accurate diagnosis and effective management. This article critically reviewed the dermatological manifestations observed in general and regional pathologies, followed by treatment-related manifestations. An extensive literature search was performed and limited to manifestations in orthopedic disease, excluding those pertaining to infection or syndromes. Case reports and case series documenting unusual and rare dermatologic presentations of orthopedic conditions were examined, providing novel perspectives on both prevalent and uncommon illnesses. The identified pathologies are discussed in detail, including their clinical features and diagnosis, while treatment approach varies depending on the severity of the condition, ranging from self-care to surgical intervention. The findings emphasize the need for interdisciplinary collaboration and highlight the importance of careful diagnosis and appropriate management to eliminate unnecessary approaches and ensure optimal outcomes for patients with orthopedic diseases and dermatologic symptoms.

No difference in patient reported outcome and inflammatory response after coated and uncoated total knee arthroplasty - a randomized controlled study

BACKGROUND

Allergies against implant materials are still not fully understood. Despite controversies about its relevance, some patients need treatment with hypoallergenic implants. This study compared coated and standard total knee arthroplasty (TKA) regarding inflammatory response and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

METHODS

76 patients without self-reported allergies against implant materials were included in a RCT and received a coated or standard TKA of the same cemented posterior-stabilized knee system. 73 patients completed the 3-year follow-up. Two patients died and there was one revision surgery. Serum levels of cytokines with a possible role in implant allergy were measured in patient`s serum (IL-1beta, IL-5, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, IFN γ, TNF α) prior to, one and three years after surgery. Furthermore, PROMs including knee function (Oxford Knee Score, Knee Society Score) and health-related quality of life (QoL, EuroQuol questionnaire) were assessed. Additionally, 8 patients with patch-test proven skin allergy against implant materials who received the coated implant were assessed similarly and compared to a matched-pair group receiving the same implant.

RESULTS

There were no differences in function and QoL between the assessed groups at any follow-up. The majority of patients demonstrated no elevation of the measured blood cytokines. Cytokine patterns showed no differences between study groups at any follow-up. The allergy patients demonstrated slower functional improvement and minor differences in cytokine pattern. Yet these results were not significant. There were no differences in the matched-pair analysis.

CONCLUSION

We observed no relevant increase in serum cytokine levels in any group. The inflammatory response measured seems limited, even in allergy patients. Furthermore, there were no differences between coated and standard TKA in non-allergy patients in the 3-year Follow-Up period.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study protocol was registered in the US National Institutes of Health's database ( http://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov ) registry under NCT03424174 on 03/17/2016.

Allergic reaction and metal hypersensitivity after shoulder joint replacement

PURPOSE

Metal ion release may cause local and systemic effects and induce hypersensitivity reactions. The aim of our study is first to determine if implant-related hypersensitivity correlates to patient symptoms or not; second, to assess the rate of hypersensitivity and allergies in shoulder arthroplasty.

METHODS

Forty patients with shoulder replacements performed between 2015 and 2017 were studied with minimum 2-year follow-up; no patient had prior metal implants. Each patient underwent radiographic and clinical evaluation using the Constant-Murley Score (CMS), 22 metal and cement haptens patch testing, serum and urine tests to evaluate 12 metals concentration, and a personal occupational medicine interview.

RESULTS

At follow-up (average 45 ± 10.7 months), the mean CMS was 76 ± 15.9; no clinical complications or radiographic signs of loosening were detected; two nickel sulfate (5%), 1 benzoyl peroxide (2.5%) and 1 potassium dichromate (2.5%) positive findings were found, but all these patients were asymptomatic. There was an increase in serum aluminum, urinary aluminum and urinary chromium levels of 1.74, 3.40 and 1.83 times the baseline, respectively. No significant difference in metal ion concentrations were found when patients were stratified according to gender, date of surgery, type of surgery, and type of implant.

CONCLUSIONS

Shoulder arthroplasty is a source of metal ion release and might act as a sensitizing exposure. However, patch test positivity does not seem to correlate to hypersensitivity cutaneous manifestations or poor clinical results. Laboratory data showed small constant ion release over time, regardless of gender, type of shoulder replacement and implant used.

LEVELS OF EVIDENCE

Level II.

Hypersensitivity reactions to metals in spine surgery

Hypersensitivity to orthopedic devices is a rare condition with an underestimated incidence due to the lack of diagnostic guideline and ambiguous clinical manifestations. Although hypersensitivity to metal is common, a few cases of hypersensitivity reactions have been reported after spinal instrumentation. Spinal fusion and stabilization require a wide range of devices such as screws, wires, bands, and artificial disk replacement devices. Spinal instrumented surgeries are different from total joint arthroplasty in several aspects such as degree and pattern of motion, loading environment, and adjacent tissues with distinct characteristics. The interval for hypersensitivity reactions to occur after spinal metallic implantation is usually weeks to months. The present review covers the topic of hypersensitivity reactions that have been reported after spinal surgeries with the focus on cutaneous presentations.

Nickel contamination after minimally-invasive repair of pectus excavatum persists after bar removal

BACKGROUND

Minimally-invasive repair of pectus excavatum (MIRPE) has been shown to be associated with high release of trace metals into patient's body. The aim of our study was to analyze the kinetics of metal contamination after MIRPE and after bar removal.

METHODS

We prospectively assessed nickel and chromium changes in blood, urine, and local tissue in patients undergoing MIRPE with stainless-steel bar(s). Baseline samples were taken prior to surgery, further samples were taken at six defined time points until 30 months after bar removal. Clinical symptoms were evaluated at the time of every sample collection.

RESULTS

28 patients were included (mean age 16.4 years). At four weeks after MIRPE and persisting up to bar removal, we found significantly elevated trace metal levels in blood and urine. Tissue nickel and chromium levels were significantly elevated at the time of bar removal. After bar removal, the concentration of trace metal in urine and the concentration of chromium in plasma decreased gradually. In contrast, nickel levels in blood further increased. Five patients showed irritative symptoms after MIRPE, all symptomatic patients had elevated metal levels.

CONCLUSIONS

Following MIRPE, we found a rapid systemic increase of nickel and chromium. Our data indicate that trace metal release could cause irritative symptoms. The prolonged elevated systemic nickel levels beyond bar removal necessitate further investigations of the long-term side effects of MIRPE.

Metal Hypersensitivity or Missed Periprosthetic Joint Infection? A Critical Review

The World Association Against Infection in Orthopedics And Trauma (W.A.I.O.T.) Study Group on Bone And Joint Infection Definitions Metal hypersensitivity (MHS) has been investigated by several authors as a possible reason for painful total joint arthroplasty, with controversial results. Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is another possible source of unexplained pain and implant failure that may be difficult to diagnose if not properly investigated. We performed this critical review to assess whether the current literature on MHS includes an adequate diagnostic workup to discern metal allergy from PJI. The results of this review highlight the importance of assessing patients for PJI before making a diagnosis of MHS and emphasize that the methods currently used to exclude PJI are substantially inadequate. Therefore, well-designed clinical trials with adequate diagnostic protocols and definitions of PJI that can differentiate MHS from low-grade PJI are needed. [Orthopedics. 2022;45(2):e73-e78.].

Is Allergy to Titanium Bone Fixation Plates a Problem?

Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with titanium fixation plates is the gold standard for maxillofacial fracture treatment. Titanium is considered a fully compatible material. However, reports of allergic reactions to titanium implants do occur. The aim of this work is to answer the question whether titanium devices used in the treatment of fractures in the craniofacial region can cause allergic reactions. The study comprised 50 subjects treated surgically for maxillofacial injuries with the use of titanium composite devices. Allergic tests were performed by the patch method. The control group consisted of 20 healthy people who did not have any titanium elements. There were no skin changes to titanium and its compounds in both the test and control groups. Only one patient had a positive skin test which showed an allergic reaction to silver nitrate. Titanium fixing elements, as well as titanium dental implants, according to our research, do not show allergic skin reactions.

Trunnionosis and metal wear causing metal hypersensitivity: 2 sides of the same coin?

Metal hypersensitivity (MHS) and trunnionosis are being looked at more frequently. Both entities pose a difficult concern for surgeons and patients alike. This commentary highlights the similarities and differences between the 2 conditions. When a surgeon suspects either MHS or trunnionosis, both should be considered in the differential diagnosis. Both conditions are rare and should be considered a diagnosis of exclusion. The commentary proposes an outline on how to diagnose and treat the 2 entities.

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.

Metal allergy in primary and revision total knee arthroplasty : a scoping review and evidence-based practical approach

AIMS

Metal allergy in knee arthroplasty patients is a controversial topic. We aimed to conduct a scoping review to clarify the management of metal allergy in primary and revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA).

METHODS

Studies were identified by searching electronic databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid MEDLINE, and Embase, from their inception to November 2020, for studies evaluating TKA patients with metal hypersensitivity/allergy. All studies reporting on diagnosing or managing metal hypersensitivity in TKA were included. Data were extracted and summarized based on study design, study population, interventions and outcomes. A practical guide is then formulated based on the available evidence.

RESULTS

We included 38 heterogeneous studies (two randomized controlled trials, six comparative studies, 19 case series, and 11 case reports). The evidence indicates that metal hypersensitivity is a rare complication with some histopathological features leading to pain and dissatisfaction with no reliable screening tests preoperatively. Hypoallergenic implants are viable alternatives for patients with self-reported/confirmed metal hypersensitivity if declared preoperatively; however, concerns remain over their long-term outcomes with ceramic implants outperforming titanium nitride-coated implants and informed consent is paramount. For patients presenting with painful TKA, metal hypersensitivity is a diagnosis of exclusion where patch skin testing, lymphocyte transformation test, and synovial biopsies are useful adjuncts before revision surgery is undertaken to hypoallergenic implants with shared decision-making and informed consent.

CONCLUSION

Using the limited available evidence in the literature, we provide a practical approach to metal hypersensitivity in TKA patients. Future national/registry-based studies are needed to identify the scale of metal hypersensitivity, agreed diagnostic criteria, and management strategies. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(10):785-795.

Metal allergy after the Nuss procedure for pectus excavatum: a review

Minimally invasive repair of pectus excavatum (MIRPE) technique (the Nuss procedure) is a minimally-invasive method that is commonly used in the treatment of pectus excavatum. An allergic reaction to the metal alloy bar that is implanted in the thorax during the procedure is a reported complication. We briefly review current literature concerning epidemiology, mechanisms and research results of allergic reactions after Nuss bar implantation. This allergic reaction occurs in approximately 2.7% of patients and is caused by metals used in the medical implant. The most common symptoms include fever and skin lesions such as allergic dermatitis. Elevated levels of C-reactive protein is a frequent finding in laboratory tests. In order to minimize the risk of such complications, taking a detailed allergy-based medical history and conducting allergy tests, i.e. patch test are required. Allergic reactions can be managed with conservative treatment such as general or topical glucocorticosteroid therapy and antihistamine agents. Severe allergic reactions can be addressed by implant revision, replacement of the steel bar with a titanium substitute or removal of the stabilization at all. Although the risk of an allergic reaction to titanium is smaller it still exists, the titanium substitute is not routinely used due to its higher cost and lesser plasticity which has a negative impact on matching a stabilizing bar during the surgery. Surgeons treating pectus excavatum should remember about the possible allergic reactions after implantation of the metal bar and be familiar with methods of diagnosis and treatment of those complications.