Delayed hypersensitivity reaction after cervical disc replacement: a case report

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.

Cervical Implant Allergy With Chronic Neck Pain: A Case Report

A 57-year-old woman underwent cervical implant surgery for a dislocated cervical spine fracture, and she complained of continuous intractable neck pain after surgery. Eight years later, she developed a plantar skin rash, subsequently diagnosed as a metal allergy, and metal dentures were replaced with ceramic ones. The skin rash, however, persisted for four more years after that and was eventually treated with cervical implant removal. Subsequently, her skin rash and her neck pain improved simultaneously. This synchronous improvement strongly suggested that the neck pain could have been caused by a cervical implant allergy. We discuss a case of posterior cervical implant allergy that presented with neck pain and plantar skin rash years after surgery.

Metal allergy hypersensitivity after posterior thoracic spinal fusion: A case report and review of the literature

Background:

Spine surgeons rarely consider metal allergies when placing hardware, as implants are thought to be inert.

Case Description:

A 32-year-old male presented with a skin rash attributed to the trace metal in his spinal fusion instrumentation. Patch testing revealed sensitivities to cobalt, manganese, and chromium. He underwent hardware removal and replacement with constructs of commercially pure titanium. His skin findings resolved at 2 weeks after surgery and were stable at 6 weeks.

Conclusion:

Hypersensitivity to metal (i.e., metal allergy) should be considered before performing instrumented spinal fusions.

Prospective, randomized multicenter study of cervical arthroplasty versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: 5-year results with a metal-on-metal artificial disc

OBJECTIVE

Seven cervical total disc replacement (TDR) devices have received FDA approval since 2006. These devices represent a heterogeneous assortment of implants made from various biomaterials with different biomechanical properties. The majority of these devices are composed of metallic endplates with a polymer core. In this prospective, randomized multicenter study, the authors evaluate the safety and efficacy of a metal-on-metal (MoM) TDR (Kineflex|C) versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) in the treatment of single-level spondylosis with radiculopathy through a long-term (5-year) follow-up.

METHODS

An FDA-regulated investigational device exemption (IDE) pivotal trial was conducted at 21 centers across the United States. Standard validated outcome measures including the Neck Disability Index (NDI) and visual analog scale (VAS) for assessing pain were used. Patients were randomized to undergo TDR using the Kineflex|C cervical artificial disc or anterior cervical fusion using structural allograft and an anterior plate. Patients were evaluated preoperatively and at 6 weeks and 3, 6, 12, 24, 36, 48, and 60 months after surgery. Serum ion analysis was performed on a subset of patients randomized to receive the MoM TDR.

RESULTS

A total of 269 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to undergo either TDR (136 patients) or ACDF (133 patients). There were no significant differences between the TDR and ACDF groups in terms of operative time, blood loss, or length of hospital stay. In both groups, the mean NDI scores improved significantly by 6 weeks after surgery and remained significantly improved throughout the 60-month follow-up (both p < 0.01). Similarly, VAS pain scores improved significantly by 6 weeks and remained significantly improved through the 60-month follow-up (both p < 0.01). There were no significant changes in outcomes between the 24- and 60-month follow-ups in either group. Range of motion in the TDR group decreased at 3 months but was significantly greater than the preoperative mean value at the 12- and 24-month follow-ups and remained significantly improved through the 60-month period. There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in terms of reoperation/revision surgery or device-/surgery-related adverse events. The serum ion analysis revealed cobalt and chromium levels significantly lower than the levels that merit monitoring.

CONCLUSIONS

Cervical TDR with an MoM device is safe and efficacious at the 5-year follow-up. These results from a prospective randomized study support that Kineflex|C TDR as a viable alternative to ACDF in appropriately selected patients with cervical radiculopathy.

Clinical trial registration no.: NCT00374413 (clinicaltrials.gov)