1
|
Abouharb A, Joseph PJS, Pandit H. Existing and Novel Assessment Methods for Metal Sensitivity in Elective Lower-Limb Arthroplasty-A Scoping Review. Arthroplast Today 2024; 28:101462. [PMID: 39170964 PMCID: PMC11338134 DOI: 10.1016/j.artd.2024.101462] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/20/2023] [Revised: 05/13/2024] [Accepted: 06/09/2024] [Indexed: 08/23/2024] Open
Abstract
Background Metal sensitivity is a possible cause for revision in elective lower-limb arthroplasty. This scoping review aims to identify and evaluate all existing and novel assessment methods for metal sensitivity in elective lower-limb arthroplasty. Methods The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), PubMed, and Google Scholar databases were searched for studies published between January 1, 2000, and September 1, 2023. Studies evaluating one or more metal sensitivity assessment method preoperatively, perioperatively, or postoperatively were included. Studies were grouped based on the assessment methods reported and summarized based on the study design, outcome measure, results, and comments on the method's validity. Results A total of 1220 results were screened, with 39 results (15 retrospective cohort studies, 11 prospective cohort studies, 6 case reports, 5 randomized controlled trials, and 2 case control studies) included, identifying 12 assessment methods. The most used one was patch testing, featuring in 17 studies (43.6%). Lymphocyte transformation assay/testing featured in 12 studies (30.8%). Plasma/serum concentration of metal ions featured in 6 studies (15.4%). Patient history and serum cytokine testing featured in 7 (17.9%) and 4 (10.3%) studies each. Generalized serum inflammatory markers featured in 3 studies (7.7%). The remaining 6 methods each featured in one or 2 studies. Evidence of the reliability of most metrics was limited. Conclusions Several assessment methods were identified. However, evidence of any methods reliably predicting and diagnosing the occurrence of metal sensitivity was limited. There is a need for improved metrics of metal hypersensitivity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Hemant Pandit
- Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, St. James's University Hospital, Leeds, UK
- Leeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine (LIRMM), University of Leeds, Leeds, West Yorkshire, UK
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Xie F, Sheng S, Ram V, Pandit H. Hypoallergenic Knee Implant Usage and Clinical Outcomes: Are They Safe and Effective? Arthroplast Today 2024; 28:101399. [PMID: 39139362 PMCID: PMC11320431 DOI: 10.1016/j.artd.2024.101399] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/27/2023] [Revised: 03/24/2024] [Accepted: 04/03/2024] [Indexed: 08/15/2024] Open
Abstract
Background One of the most debated topics in modern total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is the impact of metal hypersensitivity (MH) as a potential cause of prosthesis failure. Implanting hypoallergenic prostheses to avoid potential problems in suspected cases of MH is one treatment option that can be used in such cases. However, their long-term clinical safety and efficacy are not well proven. Methods All literature relevant to modern hypoallergenic implants were reviewed and summarized to provide a comprehensive synopsis. In addition, a detailed literature search was performed on PUBMED, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar to identify all the clinical studies reporting outcomes for hypoallergenic knee implants. Our search was confined to those studies published as full manuscripts in the English language from July 2018 to July 2023. Results To minimize the risk of MH, new implant variants have been developed which are either under clinical evaluation or in routine clinical use. These include conventional metal implants with protective coatings (mono- or multilayer) and metal-free implants. However, there is insufficient clinical data to confirm the rationale and effectiveness of using these "hypoallergenic" TKA implants. Conclusions Published studies and arthroplasty registry data analyses indicate no significant differences between hypoallergenic and standard TKAs with overall good survival rates. In the future, further high-quality studies are needed to better understand the complexity of this subject.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Feng Xie
- Department of Orthopedics, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China
| | - Shuya Sheng
- Leeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine (LIRMM), University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Venkatesh Ram
- Chapel Allerton Hospital, C/O Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK
| | - Hemant Pandit
- Leeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine (LIRMM), University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
- Chapel Allerton Hospital, C/O Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Tidd JL, Gudapati LS, Simmons HL, Klika AK, Pasqualini I, Piuzzi NS. Do Patients With Hypoallergenic Total Knee Arthroplasty Implants for Metal Allergy Do Worse? An Analysis of Health Care Utilizations and Patient-Reported Outcome Measures. J Arthroplasty 2024; 39:103-110. [PMID: 37454947 DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2023.07.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/26/2023] [Revised: 07/02/2023] [Accepted: 07/10/2023] [Indexed: 07/18/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Metal allergy is a rare and controversial cause of implant failure and poor outcomes following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Few studies have investigated clinical and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in patients treated with hypoallergenic implants. This investigation aimed to compare: (1) health care utilizations (eg, hospital length of stay, 90-day readmission rate, and incidence of nonhome discharge) and (2) 1-year PROMs between patients who received hypoallergenic and standard TKA implants. METHODS This was a retrospective review of prospectively collected data from patients who underwent primary TKA between 2018 and 2019. Propensity score matching (3:1) was used to compare standard TKA patients with those who received hypoallergenic TKA implants, respectively. Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) pain, KOOS Physical function Shortform (PS), and Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey Mental Component Score were collected preoperatively and at 1-year. After matching, 190 hypoallergenic and 570 standard TKAs were analyzed. RESULTS No differences were observed in length of stay (P = .98), 90-day readmission (P = .89), and nonhome discharge (P = .82). Additionally, there was no significant difference in change from preoperative to 1-year PROMs (KOOS pain, P = .97; KOOS PS, P = .88; Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey Mental Component Score, P = .28). Patient-reported satisfaction was similar at 1-year (P = .23). Patients achieved similar rates of Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) and minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for KOOS pain (PASS, P = .77; MCID, P = .33) and KOOS PS (PASS, P = .44; MCID, P = .65). CONCLUSION Patients treated with hypoallergenic TKA implants for suspected metal allergy had similar outcomes compared to patients who had standard implants and no metal allergy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Joshua L Tidd
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio; College of Medicine, Northeast Ohio Medical University, Rootstown, Ohio
| | | | - Hannah L Simmons
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio
| | - Alison K Klika
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio
| | | | - Nicolas S Piuzzi
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio; Department of Biomedical Engineering, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Siljander B, Chandi S, Debbi E, McLawhorn A, Sculco PK, Chalmers BP. A comparison of clinical outcomes after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in patients with preoperative nickel allergy receiving Cobalt-Chromium (CoCr) or Nickel-Free Implant. J Arthroplasty 2023:S0883-5403(23)00403-5. [PMID: 37100098 DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2023.04.048] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/16/2022] [Revised: 04/14/2023] [Accepted: 04/17/2023] [Indexed: 04/28/2023] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The role of metal hypersensitivity reactions in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) failure is debated. There is no consensus on whether use of a more expensive nickel-free implant is indicated for patients who have pre-operative nickel allergy. The purpose of this study was to examine the outcome of patients who have pre-operative nickel allergy receiving nickel-free or cobalt chromium (CoCr) implants. METHODS This was a retrospective review of 17,798 patients who underwent 20,324 unilateral primary TKAs between 2016 and 2020. Presence of pre-operative nickel allergy was determined (n=282). Patients were divided into 2 cohorts: those receiving (1) nickel-free or (2) CoCr implants. Clinical outcome scores and revision rates were assessed. RESULTS 243 received a nickel-free implant and 39 received a CoCr implant. There was no significant difference in revision rate between the cohorts. Survivorship free of revision was 94% in the CoCr implant cohort and 98% in the nickel-free implant cohort (P=0.9). When comparing clinical outcome scores between cohorts, there was no difference in preoperative, 6-week or 1-year Knee Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Joint Replacement (KOOS JR.), Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Lower Extremity Activity Scale (LEAS), Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS), and Veterans RAND 12-item (VR12) scores between cohorts. CONCLUSIONS In this retrospective cohort study, there was no difference in revision rates or clinical outcomes in patients who had a nickel allergy undergoing primary TKA with CoCr or nickel-free implants. Further studies are needed to determine if nickel allergy is an independent risk factor for worse TKA outcomes in general.
Collapse
|
5
|
Bracey DN, Hegde V, Johnson R, Kleeman-Forsthuber L, Jennings J, Dennis D. Poor Correlation Among Metal Hypersensitivity Testing Modalities and Inferior Patient-Reported Outcomes After Primary and Revision Total Knee Arthroplasties. Arthroplast Today 2022; 18:138-142. [PMID: 36345325 PMCID: PMC9636001 DOI: 10.1016/j.artd.2022.09.016] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/31/2022] [Revised: 09/16/2022] [Accepted: 09/22/2022] [Indexed: 11/06/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daniel N. Bracey
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | - Vishal Hegde
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | | | | | - Jason Jennings
- Colorado Joint Replacement, Denver, CO, USA
- Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, University of Denver, Denver, CO, USA
- Corresponding author. Colorado Joint Replacement Centre, 2535 S. Downing Street, Suite 100, Denver, CO 80210. Tel.: +1 720 524 1367.
| | - Douglas Dennis
- Colorado Joint Replacement, Denver, CO, USA
- Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, University of Denver, Denver, CO, USA
- Department of Orthopaedics, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Denver, CO, USA
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Toledo de Araujo LC, Freitag J, Kamath AF, Sandiford NA, Kendoff D. High early failure rate for a new unicondylar knee system. ANNALS OF JOINT 2022; 8:3. [PMID: 38529219 PMCID: PMC10929342 DOI: 10.21037/aoj-22-18] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/11/2022] [Accepted: 11/10/2022] [Indexed: 03/27/2024]
Abstract
Background This single-center retrospective study evaluated early failure rates for an unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) system with an anti-allergic surface. Methods We studied 87 consecutive joints received an UKA at a single center between 2017 and 2020. All patients received a fully cemented anti-allergic Univation-Aesculap partial knee replacement implant with a corundum blasting surface. All joints had precise indication of unicompartmental arthroplasty according to the current criteria of this procedure. The current series was restricted to patients undergoing medial cemented UKA. Medial compartment osteoarthritis was the main indication. Results We found early failure (aseptic loosening) was documented in 20 of the 87 joints (23%). The time to failure ranged from 7 weeks to 3 years, for an estimated 33% (15-46%) cumulative hazard rate for implant loosening over three years. No cases of periprosthetic joint infection were found. On average, the patients began complaining about first symptoms during the third month after surgery. In most cases (66.66%), the cement remained fixed to the bone. Conclusions Based on these early results, the manufacturer of this implant stopped all further distribution. Continued efforts should be made to understand the clinical and radiographic outcomes of alternative and anti-allergic surface coatings in knee arthroplasty.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lucio C. Toledo de Araujo
- ENDO Klinik Berlin, Berlin, Germany
- Regional Hospital of São José Dr. Homero M Gomes, São José, Santa Catarina, Brazil
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
7
|
Pahlavan S, Hegde V, Bracey DN, Jennings JM, Dennis DA. Bone Cement Hypersensitivity in Patients With a Painful Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Case Series of Revision Using Custom Cementless Implants. Arthroplast Today 2021; 11:20-24. [PMID: 34409143 PMCID: PMC8361018 DOI: 10.1016/j.artd.2021.06.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/01/2021] [Revised: 06/03/2021] [Accepted: 06/05/2021] [Indexed: 11/05/2022] Open
Abstract
Little is known about patients with bone cement hypersenstivity after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). We present 7 patients implanted with 8 TKAs with clinical failure and a cement hypersensitivity diagnosis. All demonstrated hypersensitivity to bone cement via skin patch and/or lymphocyte transformation testing. All 7 patients also showed hypersensitivity to metal, most commonly nickel. Patients underwent custom cementless TKA revision. Prerevision and postrevision outcome measures, radiographs, intraoperative findings, and postrevision complications are reported. Functional scores improved after revision except Veterans RAND-12 mental component scores, which declined. Four patients continue to exhibit symptoms postoperatively, while one patient has had 3 additional surgical procedures. Patients presenting with bone cement hypersensitivity after TKA are particularly challenging. Evidence-based guidelines are lacking, and revision surgery may not relieve the presenting symptoms.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sheila Pahlavan
- Colorado Joint Replacement, Denver, CO, USA.,University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA
| | - Vishal Hegde
- Colorado Joint Replacement, Denver, CO, USA.,Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Daniel N Bracey
- Colorado Joint Replacement, Denver, CO, USA.,Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | - Jason M Jennings
- Colorado Joint Replacement, Denver, CO, USA.,Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, University of Denver, Denver, CO, USA
| | - Douglas A Dennis
- Colorado Joint Replacement, Denver, CO, USA.,Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, University of Denver, Denver, CO, USA.,Department of Orthopaedics, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Denver, CO, USA.,Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA
| |
Collapse
|