High frequency of contact allergy to implant and bone cement components, in particular gentamicin, in cemented arthroplasty with complications: usefulness of late patch test reading

A literature review and expert consensus statement on diagnostics in suspected metal implant allergy

BACKGROUND

Although rare, allergic reactions to metal implants represent a diagnostic challenge in view of missing guidelines.

OBJECTIVES

To develop an European expert consensus on characteristics of metal allergy reactions and the utility of various diagnostic tools in suspected metal implant allergy.

METHODS

A nominal group technique (NGT) was applied to develop consensus statements. Initially an online literature database was created on a secure server to enable a comprehensive information. Twenty-three statements were formulated on potential aspects of metal implant allergy with a focus on diagnostics and grouped into five domains. For the consensus development, the panel of 12 experts initially did refine and reformulate those statements that were ambiguous or had unclear wording. By face-to-face (9/12) or virtual participation (3/12), an anonymous online voting was performed.

RESULTS

Consensus (≥80% of agreement) was reached in 20/23 statements. The panel agreed that implant allergy despite being rare should be considered in case of persistent unexplained symptoms. It was, however, recommended to allow adequate time for resolution of symptoms associated with healing and integration of an implant. Obtaining questionnaire-aided standardized medical history and standardized scoring of patient outcomes was also considered an important step by all experts There was broad consensus regarding the utility/performance of patch testing with additional late reading. It was recognized that the lymphocyte transformation test (LTT) has to many limitations to be generally recommended. Prior to orthopaedic implant, allergy screening of patients without a history of potential allergy to implant components was not recommended.

CONCLUSIONS

Using an expert consensus process, statements concerning allergy diagnostics in suspected metal implant allergy were created. Areas of nonconsensus were identified, stressing uncertainty among the experts around topics such as preoperative testing in assumed allergy, histological correlate of periimplant allergy and in vitro testing, which underscores the need for further research.

Utilization of Antibiotic Bone Cement in Spine Surgery: Pearls, Techniques, and Case Review

Vertebral osteomyelitis (VO) encompasses a spectrum of spinal infections ranging from isolated mild vertebral osteomyelitis to severe diffuse infection with associated epidural abscess and fracture. Although patients can often be treated with an initial course of intravenous antibiotics, surgery is sometimes required in patients with sepsis, spinal instability, neurological compromise, or failed medical treatment. Antibiotic bone cement (ABC) has been widely used in orthopedic extremity surgery for more than 150 years, both for prophylaxis and treatment of bacterial infection. However, relatively little literature exists regarding its utilization in spine surgery. This article describes ABC utilization in orthopedic surgery and explains the technique of ABC utilization in spine surgery. Surgeons can choose from multiple premixed ABCs with variable viscosities, setting times, and antibiotics or can mix in antibiotics to bone cements themselves. ABC can be used to fill large defects in the vertebral body or disc space or in some cases to coat instrumentation. Surgeons should be wary of complications such as ABC extravasation as well as an increased difficulty with revision. With a thorough understanding of the properties of the cement and the methods of delivery, ABC is a powerful adjunct in the treatment of spinal infections.

2-Hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA): A clinical review of contact allergy and allergic contact dermatitis-Part 1. Introduction, epidemiology, case series and case reports

2-Hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA) has been increasingly recognised as a contact allergen and was added to the European baseline series in 2019. In this article (2 parts), the results of an extensive literature review of the clinical aspects of contact allergy/allergic contact dermatitis to HEMA are presented. In part 1, the epidemiology of HEMA contact allergy is discussed and detailed information on published case series and case reports presented. HEMA is an important cause of contact allergy/allergic contact dermatitis in North America and Europe with recent prevalences of >3% in the USA + Canada and 1.5%-3.7% in Europe. Currently, most cases are caused by nail cosmetics, both in consumers and professional nail stylists. In our literature review, we have found 24 studies presenting case series of patients with allergic contact dermatitis attributed to HEMA and 168 case reports. However, the presence of HEMA in the products causing ACD was established in only a minority. Part 2 will discuss cross- and co-sensitisation, and other skin reactions to HEMA, will assess whether HEMA is the most frequent (meth)acrylate allergen and how sensitive HEMA as a screening agent is, investigate the presence of HEMA in commercial products and provide practical information on patch testing procedures.

A Retrospective Review of Late Delayed Positive Patch Testing Greater Than Day 8 at Mayo Clinic From 2001 to 2020

BACKGROUND

Patch tests are read between days 5 and 7, because most hypersensitivity reactions occur within 7 days. Later reactions can occur after day 8, which may be missed.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to review all late delayed positive (LDP) reactions that have occurred after day 8 at Mayo Clinic from 2001 to 2020.

METHODS

Mayo Clinic records were reviewed for patients who had patch test readings performed at greater than day 8. Late delayed positive reactions were defined as any patch tests that were initially negative from days 4 to 7 yet became positive after day 8.

RESULTS

Two hundred seventy-four patients developed 439 LDPs to 89 allergens. Fourteen allergens had LDPs in at least 2% of patients: gold (gold sodium thiosulfate-3 concentrations, gold chloride, potassium dicyanoaurate), cobalt (cobalt sulfate, cobalt chloride hexahydrate), beryllium, palladium, acrylates (2-hydroxypropyl methacrylate, 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate, 2-hydroxyethyl acrylate), dodecyl gallate, and gentamycin. Late delayed positive reactions to gold allergens were the most frequent reactions. Up to 90% of relevant gold allergen LDPs were positive by day 15.

CONCLUSIONS

Positive patch test readings after day 8 are uncommon, but allergens most likely to be positive are metals (gold, cobalt, palladium, beryllium), acrylates, dodecyl gallate, and gentamycin. Gold allergens showed the highest LDP rates and relevance, with most reactions occurring by day 15.

The effect of Nickel hypersensitivity on the outcome of total knee arthroplasty and the value of skin patch testing: a systematic review

Background

To assess the Nickel sensitizing potential of total knee arthroplasty (TKA), explore the relationship between hypersensitivity and clinical outcomes, and evaluate the utility of skin patch testing pre- and/or postoperatively.

Materials and methods

A literature search was performed through EMBASE, Medline and PubMed databases. Articles were screened independently by two investigators. The level of evidence of studies was assessed using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Criteria and the quality evaluated using the Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies and Cochrane risk-of-bias tools.

Results

Twenty studies met the eligibility criteria, reporting on 1354 knee arthroplasties. Studies included patients undergoing primary or revision TKA, pre- and/or postoperatively, and used patch testing to identify Nickel hypersensitivity. Prevalence of Nickel hypersensitivity ranged from 0% to 87.5%. One study compared the prevalence of Nickel hypersensitivity in the same patient group before and after surgery and noted newly positive patch test reactions in three patients (4.2%). Three studies reported lower prevalence of Nickel hypersensitivity in postoperative patients compared to preoperative ones. Seven studies suggested that hypersensitivity might cause adverse clinical outcomes, but six did not support any relationship. Seven studies recommended preoperative patch testing in patients with history of metal allergy, and nine concluded that testing may be valuable postoperatively.

Conclusions

Patients undergoing TKA with no prior history of metal hypersensitivity do not seem to be at an increased risk of developing Nickel hypersensitivity, and there is conflicting evidence that patients with pre-existing hypersensitivity are more likely to experience adverse outcomes. Patch testing remains the most commonly used method for diagnosing hypersensitivity, and evidence suggests preoperative testing in patients with history of metal allergy to aid prosthesis selection, and postoperatively in patients with suspected hypersensitivity once common causes of implant failure have been excluded, since revision with hypoallergenic implants may alleviate symptoms.

Antibiotic Cement Utilization for the Prophylaxis and Treatment of Infections in Spine Surgery: Basic Science Principles and Rationale for Clinical Use

Antibiotic bone cement (ABC) is an effective tool for the prophylaxis and treatment of osteomyelitis due to the controlled, sustained release of local antibiotics. ABC has been proven to be effective in the orthopedic fields of arthroplasty and extremity trauma, but the adoption of ABC in spine surgery is limited. The characteristics of ABC make it an optimal solution for treating vertebral osteomyelitis (VO), a serious complication following spine surgery, typically caused by bacterial and sometimes fungal and parasitic pathogens. VO can be devastating, as infection can result in pathogenic biofilms on instrumentation that is dangerous to remove. New techniques, such as kyphoplasty and novel vertebroplasty methods, could amplify the potential of ABC in spine surgery. However, caution should be exercised when using ABC as there is some evidence of toxicity to patients and surgeons, antibiotic allergies, bone cement structural impairment, and possible development of antibiotic resistance. The purpose of this article is to describe the basic science of antibiotic cement utilization and review its usage in spine surgery.

Clinical Results of Revision TKA in Patients With Presumed Metal and Cement Allergy

BACKGROUND

Metal and cement allergy affects a small subset of patients, causing severe pain and often systemic reaction after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Revision with ceramic-surfaced femoral components has been reported to resolve these symptoms of metal allergy, but no solution currently is available for patients with allergies to metal and bone cement.

METHODS

Five patients (5 knees) with documented metal allergy were revised with custom porous-coated ceramic femoral components (Magnesia-stabilized Zirconia) from January 2007 to January 2013. An additional 23 patients (23 knees) met inclusion criteria from 2007 to 2015, but because the ceramic implant was unavailable, they underwent different treatment based on their underlying allergy to metal, cement, or both. Inclusion criteria included the history of clinically documented severe metal allergy, severe pain, swelling, and effusion >1 year after TKA, negative workup for infection, loosening, and ligament imbalance. Knee Society scores were compared for each cohort.

RESULTS

Mean Knee Society scores for all 5 patients revised with custom cementless ceramic femoral components improved significantly for objective score (preoperative, 39 ± 5; most recent visit, 90 ± 2) and function score (preoperative, 33 ± 8; most recent visit 93 ± 4) (P < .0001). The 12 knees revised with off-the-shelf cemented ceramic-coated femoral components had similar results. The 7 unrevised knees (including 4 knees with allergy to metal and bone cement) and the 4 knees revised with standard CoCr femoral components did not improve and worsened over time.

CONCLUSION

Symptoms resolved in the 5 patients revised with custom ceramic implants and in the 12 patients revised with ceramic-coated components, but did not improve in the patients unrevised or revised with CoCr femoral components. Symptoms presumed to be associated with metal or cement allergy improve with the use of ceramic femoral surfaces, but patients who are allergic both to metals and bone cement would be candidates only for porous-coated ceramic implants fixed without bone cement.

Contact sensitization to iron - a potentially underestimated metal allergen and elicitor of complications in patients with metal implants

BACKGROUND

Little is known about sensitization to iron (Fe) in private, working and medical settings, particulary implantology.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate sensitization to metals, particularly to Fe, both in pre-implant individuals with presumed metal allergy and in patients with suspected metal implant allergy. To further characterize Fe-sensitized individuals.

METHODS

Analysis of patch test reactions to an Fe (II)-sulfate-containing metal series in 183 consecutive patients (41 pre-implant, 142 metal implant-bearers). Test readings on D2, D3 and D6. Evaluation of questionnaire-aided history, of metal reactivity patterns, and demographics of Fe-reactors.

RESULTS

Metal reactivity in pre-implant/implant/total group was: to nickel 39%/30%/32%; to cobalt 17%/15%/15%; to chromium 7%/13%/11%. Co-sensitizations cobalt/nickel (19/58) and cobalt/chromium (11/21) were significant at P < .001; co-sensitizations Fe/Nickel (4/10) and chromium/knee arthroplasty (11/73) at P = .03. Ten of 183 (5.5%) reacted to Fe (2 of 41 pre-implant patients, 8 of 142 implant-bearers) with 10 only reacting on D6. Fe-reactivity was highest in complicated knee arthroplasty (7/73). Further peculiarities of Fe reactors included frequent isolated Fe reactivity (6/10), occupational metal exposure (7/10), previous (par)enteral Fe-substitution (6/10).

CONCLUSIONS

The 5.5% prevalence of Fe-reactions suggests a potentially underestimated role of this metal allergen in general and in implant-bearers. The latter also show a distinct metal sensitization pattern. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Nickel hypersensitivity and skin patch testing in total hip replacement surgery: a systematic review

Approximately 60,000 cemented femoral stems are implanted in the UK each year with the majority being manufactured from stainless steel containing 10–15% nickel. Nickel hypersensitivity has been reported in up to 13% of the general population and there is a concern that nickel hypersensitivity might adversely affect the outcome of total hip replacement (THR). We reviewed the current literature on the potential link between nickel hypersensitivity and THR complications, and the usefulness of patch testing.

We conducted a literature search in PubMed, MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. The level of evidence and the quality of the selected studies were assessed using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Criteria and the Methodological Index for Non-Randomised Studies tool, respectively.

Twenty-six studies met the inclusion criteria, reporting on 1852 patients who underwent primary or revision THR. All studies detailed skin patch testing and recorded prevalence of nickel hypersensitivity from 1.5% to 33.3%. Five studies reported a rise in Nickel hypersensitivity following THR, while four reported a decreased prevalence post-operatively. Eight studies concluded that metal hypersensitivity could have developed following THR, while seven studies did not support a link between metal hypersensitivity and THR complications. Four of the studies recommended routine patch testing pre-operatively, but three others concluded that routine patch testing was not indicated.

We have not identified a link between nickel hypersensitivity and THR complications, and the role of patch testing remains unclear. Further large-scale studies would be required to investigate this relationship and to clarify the role of patch testing in facilitating implant selection.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2021;6:825-838. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.6.210051

Allergic Contact Dermatitis From Topical Drugs: An Overview

ABSTRACT

Allergic contact dermatitis from topical drugs is frequent and is seen in 10% to 17% of patients patch tested for suspected contact dermatitis. More than 360 drugs have been implicated as contact allergens, of which-generally-antibiotics, corticosteroids, local anesthetics, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are the most frequent culprits. This article provides an overview of allergic contact dermatitis to topical drugs, discussing their prevalence of sensitization, predisposing factors, clinical manifestations (both typical and atypical), the drugs described as allergens, cross-reactivity and coreactivity, and diagnostic procedures.

Patch Test Results and Outcome in Patients with Complications from Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Consecutive Case Series

The role of hypersensitivity in implant-related complications remains controversial. The objectives of our study were to (1) establish the prevalence of hypersensitivity to components of knee prostheses in patients referred to our contact dermatitis clinic, (2) determine if patients with post-surgery dermatitis have become sensitized, and (3) describe the outcome of patients with and without hypersensitivity. We reviewed the charts of patients referred from 2007 to 2018 and extracted demographic information, date, type, and site of implant, clinical presentation, and results of patch testing (PT) or lymphocyte transformation tests (LTT). We called most patients to gather data such as clinical outcome, nature, and timing of additional surgery. Statistical analysis included computation of conventional descriptive statistics. Because of the type of study design, only some categorical variables were tested for possible associations by analytical tools (cross-tabulation). Thirty-nine patients, 23 men (59.0%), and 16 women (41.0%), were included. Their mean age in years was 63.3 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 60.9-65.7) ranging from 39.0 to 79.0, (standard deviation) = 9.69, without statistically significant differences between males and females. Five patients had positive PT possibly relevant to their implant. Four patients had revision surgery and two improved. Of nine patients with dermatitis, one with relevant PT did not improve after revision, and the dermatitis was unrelated to TKA in eight. Of the 26 patients without dermatitis or relevant PT results, 9 had revisions because of incapacitating symptoms, and 5 improved. Hypersensitivity to implant components is a potential factor in the etiology of TKA complications. Patients with confirmed hypersensitivity may benefit from revision. Our study, however, did not detect statistically significant differences in outcome of revision surgery between patients with positive versus negative PT or LTT. In spite of this, we consider that patients with a history suggestive of metal, acrylate or aminoglycoside allergy should be tested preoperatively to avoid hypersensitivity-related postoperative complications. In the absence of hypersensitivity, some patients with incapacitating symptoms may also improve following revision.

The role of antibiotic-loaded bone cement in complicated knee arthroplasty: relevance of gentamicin allergy and benefit from revision surgery - a case control follow-up study and algorithmic approach

BACKGROUND

Antibiotic-loaded (particularly gentamicin) bone cement (BC) is widely used in total joint arthroplasty (TJA) to prevent periprosthetic infections (PPIs), but may itself cause implant failure. In light of a complete lack in literature, the objective was to assess the clinical relevance of gentamicin allergy for failure of cemented total knee arthroplasties in 25 out of 250 patients with positive patch test reactions to gentamicin and otherwise unexplained symptoms by evaluating benefits from revision with change to gentamicin-free cement.

METHODS

Fifteen of these 25 patients and their treating orthopaedic surgeons agreed to a re-assessment. They were surveyed regarding interim course of therapy and symptoms, including re-assessment of the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), and underwent follow-up clinical and radiographic investigations. The initial use of gentamicin-loaded BC was reaffirmed by review of the primary implantation operative reports and respective implant passports. Primary and follow-up KOOS scores were analyzed regarding benefits from revision surgery by comparing nine patients with revision to six without revision.

RESULTS

Mean follow-up time was 38 months. The entirety of patients experienced an improvement of self-reported symptoms, with revision surgery (i.e., switching to gentamicin-free BC or uncemented total knee arthroplasty) yielding significantly greater improvement (p = 0.031): the nine revised patients reported a significant symptom relief (p = 0.028), contrary to the six unrevised patients (p = 0.14). Interestingly, the decision to proceed with revision surgery was significantly correlated with higher symptom severity (p = 0.05).

CONCLUSION

In symptomatic total knee arthroplasty with gentamicin allergy, uncemented revision arthroplasty or change to gentamicin-free BC provides significant symptom relief.

Metal hypersensitivity in patients with orthopaedic implant complications-A retrospective clinical study

BACKGROUND

Hypersensitivity to metals as a cause of implant-related complications has been a subject of controversy. Projections indicate an increase in the frequency of joint replacements of between 300% and 600% by the year 2030; therefore, this issue is of considerable interest.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate sensitization to implant materials in patients with implant-related complications, to identify allergens, and to clarify whether hypersensitivity is a relevant cause.

METHODS

Patients with implant-related complications or a positive history of contact allergy and planned total joint replacements referred for allergological investigation between 2004 and 2017 were retrospectively analysed.

RESULTS

In total, 311 patients were included. A positive patch test reaction to a metal was seen in 64.4% of preoperative patients and in 54.6% of patients with implant-related complications. Common alloy metals such as cobalt, chromium and titanium gave positive reactions in up to 2.9% of patients with implant-related complications. None of the patients with skin changes had a positive patch test reaction to an implant metal.

CONCLUSION

Other factors, such as the type of replaced joint and mechanical stress, seem to be more relevant for implant-related complications. Sensitization to metals or other materials seems to rarely play a role, and is overestimated.

Patch Testing for Evaluation of Hypersensitivity to Implanted Metal Devices: A Perspective From the American Contact Dermatitis Society

The American Contact Dermatitis Society recognizes the interest in the evaluation and management of metal hypersensitivity reactions. Given the paucity of robust evidence with which to guide our practices, we provide reasonable evidence and expert opinion-based guidelines for clinicians with regard to metal hypersensitivity reaction testing and patient management. Routine preoperative evaluation in individuals with no history of adverse cutaneous reactions to metals or history of previous implant-related adverse events is not necessary. Patients with a clear self-reported history of metal reactions should be evaluated by patch testing before device implant. Patch testing is only 1 element in the assessment of causation in those with postimplantation morbidity. Metal exposure from the implanted device can cause sensitization, but a positive metal test does not prove symptom causality. The decision to replace an implanted device must include an assessment of all clinical factors and a thorough risk-benefit analysis by the treating physician(s) and patient.

[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.

[Synovial biomarkers for differential diagnosis of painful arthroplasty]

BACKGROUND

The diagnosis and treatment of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) remain true clinical challenges. PJI diminishes therapeutic success, causes dissatisfaction for the patient and medical staff, and often requires extensive surgical revision(s). At the present time, an extensive multimodal algorithmic approach is used to avoid time- and cost-consuming diagnostic aberrations. However, especially in the case of the frequent and clinically most relevant "low-grade" PJI, the current diagnostic "gold standard" has reached its limits.

EVALUATION

Synovial biomarkers are thought to close this diagnostic gap, hopefully enabling the safe differentiation among aseptic, (chronic) septic, implant allergy-related and the arthrofibrotic genesis of symptomatic arthroplasty. Therefore, joint aspiration for obtaining synovial fluid is preferred over surgical synovial tissue biopsy because of the faster results, greater practicability, greater patient safety, and lower costs. In addition to the parameters synovial IL-6, CRP, and leukocyte esterase, novel biomarkers such as antimicrobial peptides and other proinflammatory cytokines are currently highlighted because of their very high to excellent diagnostic accuracy.

CONCLUSION

Independent multicenter validation studies are required to show whether a set of different innovative synovial fluid biomarkers rather than a few single parameters is favorable for a safe "one-stop shop" differential diagnosis of PJI.