PDF herunterladen
J Knee Surg 2015; 28(03): 243-246
DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1381959
Original Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Prevalence of Self-Reported Metal Allergy in Patients Undergoing Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty

Adam D. Bloemke
1   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona
,
Henry D. Clarke
1   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona
› Institutsangaben
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

08. Januar 2014

01. Mai 2014

Publikationsdatum:
20. Juni 2014 (online)

    Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

No validated screening method exists to identify patients at risk for metal allergy complications following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Select use of implants that do not contain nickel, cobalt, and chromium may be considered in patients at risk. This study was performed to determine the rate of self-reported cutaneous metal allergy, or sensitivity, in patients undergoing knee replacement, and to evaluate whether there is a higher prevalence in females. A retrospective chart review was performed on 194 consecutive patients who underwent primary knee arthroplasty with a single surgeon between 2010 and 2011. During this period, all patients, except those with a previous well-functioning orthopedic device, were asked preoperatively about a history of metal allergy or sensitivity. The prevalence of self-reported cutaneous metal allergy, or sensitivity, was 14%; 22% (19/86) of females and 2% (1/53) of males reported a positive history. Fourteen percent of patients undergoing TKA self-identify as having a cutaneous metal allergy or sensitivity. Until validated screening tests are developed to identify patients “at risk” of symptomatic metal allergy after TKA, selective use of prostheses that do not contain cobalt, chromium, or nickel in individuals who self-identify with metal sensitivity may be considered. As most of these patients are female, manufacturers should consider optimizing availability of these implants in smaller sizes.

Keywords

metal allergy - total knee arthroplasty - complications - prevalence
 

  • References

  • 1 Foussereau J, Laugier P. Allergic eczemas from metallic foreign bodies. Trans St Johns Hosp Dermatol Soc 1966; 52 (2) 220-225
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Basketter DA, Briatico-Vangosa G, Kaestner W, Lally C, Bontinck WJ. Nickel, cobalt and chromium in consumer products: a role in allergic contact dermatitis?. Contact Dermat 1993; 28 (1) 15-25
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Thyssen JP, Menné T. Metal allergy—a review on exposures, penetration, genetics, prevalence, and clinical implications. Chem Res Toxicol 2010; 23 (2) 309-318
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Thyssen JP, Linneberg A, Menné T, Johansen JD. The epidemiology of contact allergy in the general population—prevalence and main findings. Contact Dermat 2007; 57 (5) 287-299
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Hallab N, Merritt K, Jacobs JJ. Metal sensitivity in patients with orthopaedic implants. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2001; 83-A (3) 428-436
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Merritt K, Rodrigo JJ. Immune response to synthetic materials. Sensitization of patients receiving orthopaedic implants. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1996; (326) 71-79
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Niki Y, Matsumoto H, Otani T , et al. Screening for symptomatic metal sensitivity: a prospective study of 92 patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty. Biomaterials 2005; 26 (9) 1019-1026
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Thyssen JP, Menné T, Schalock PC, Taylor JS, Maibach HI. Pragmatic approach to the clinical work-up of patients with putative allergic disease to metallic orthopaedic implants before and after surgery. Br J Dermatol 2011; 164 (3) 473-478
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Valentine-Thon E, Schiwara HW. Validity of MELISA for metal sensitivity testing. Neuroendocrinol Lett 2003; 24 (1-2) 57-64
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Valentine-Thon E, Müller K, Guzzi G, Kreisel S, Ohnsorge P, Sandkamp M. LTT-MELISA is clinically relevant for detecting and monitoring metal sensitivity. Neuroendocrinol Lett 2006; 27 (Suppl. 01) 17-24
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Stejskal VD, Cederbrant K, Lindvall A, Forsbeck M. MELISA-an in vitro tool for the study of metal allergy. Toxicol In Vitro 1994; 8 (5) 991-1000
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Jacobs JJ, Campbell PA T Konttinen Y; Implant Wear Symposium 2007 Biologic Work Group. How has the biologic reaction to wear particles changed with newer bearing surfaces?. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2008; 16 (Suppl. 01) S49-S55
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Kwon YM, Thomas P, Summer B , et al. Lymphocyte proliferation responses in patients with pseudotumors following metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty. J Orthop Res 2010; 28 (4) 444-450
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Schalock PC, Menné T, Johansen JD , et al. Hypersensitivity reactions to metallic implants - diagnostic algorithm and suggested patch test series for clinical use. Contact Dermat 2012; 66 (1) 4-19
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Granchi D, Cenni E, Tigani D, Trisolino G, Baldini N, Giunti A. Sensitivity to implant materials in patients with total knee arthroplasties. Biomaterials 2008; 29 (10) 1494-1500
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Josefson A, Färm G, Meding B. Validity of self-reported nickel allergy. Contact Dermat 2010; 62 (5) 289-293
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar