Metal allergy and second-generation metal-on-metal arthroplasties

Metal implant allergy: A retrospective cohort analysis at a university allergy practice

Background: Concern of metal sensitization in pre- and postsurgical evaluation is growing, with the recent guidelines remaining the criterion standard for consideration of patch testing. Information remains scarce on surgical screening in the groups of patients who reported a history of metal sensitivity versus those with no reported history. Objective: The objective of this study was to assess the utility of patch testing in surgical candidates based on reported metal allergy history. The secondary objective was to evaluate the utility and outcomes in postsurgical patch testing. Methods: Nine hundred and thirty-one patient charts of patients with the diagnosis of "contact dermatitis" who underwent an evaluation at a single allergy clinic site between January 2013 and December 2022 were identified and reviewed as part of a retrospective chart review study. Patients were included in subgroups based on the time of patch testing and history of reported metal allergy. Results: In all, 67 patients underwent patch testing, 10 (14.9%) of whom were surgical candidates without a history of metal sensitivity, 31 (46.2%) of whom were surgical candidates with a history of metal sensitivity, and 26 (38.8%) of whom were postsurgical patients. Twenty-nine (43.3%) of patients had positive patch testing results, with only one (10%) in the presurgical group, 17 (54.8%) in the presurgical with a history of metal sensitivity, and 11 (42.3%) in the postsurgical group. Zero patients in our cohort without metal sensitivity who were undergoing the Nuss procedure had positive reactions on patch testing, whereas two of four (50%) with reported metal sensitivity who were undergoing the Nuss procedure had positive relevant metal reactions. Conclusion: Ambiguity in the utility of patch testing for surgical decision making remains, despite common utilization. Recent guidelines along with coordination of care among the surgeon, allergist, and patient remains the criterion standard of care.

Hypersensitivity and lymphocyte activation after total hip arthroplasty

In the last decades total hip arthroplasty (THA) has become a standard procedure with many benefits but also a few still unsolved complications, which can lead to surgical revision in 19-23% of cases. Thus, aseptic loosening and metal hypersensitivity remain challenges. The phenomenon of wear debris causes chronic inflammation, which produces osteolysis and aseptic loosening. Wear debris promotes osteoclast production and inhibits osteoblasts by secretion of pro-inflammatory cytokines. Micro-abrasions can be induced by abrasive, adhesive and fatigue wear and cause a liberation of metal ions, which lead to another immune response elicited mostly by macrophages. Another reaction in the neocapsule can be a type IV hypersensitivity reaction to various alloys, containing metals such as nickel, cobalt and chromium. Patch testing and the lymphocyte transformation test (LTT) are not the best diagnostic possibilities to exclude a postoperative hypersensitivity reaction, because of the different alignment of the epicutaneous cells compared to the periprosthetic deep tissue. This hypersensitivity reaction is mostly induced by cytokines, which are secreted by macrophages rather than lymphocytes. In cell cultures and in animal studies, multipotent mesenchymal stem cells (MSC) have been shown to play a role in improving initial implant integration, to limit periprosthetic osteolysis and also to reconstitute peri-implant bone stock during implant revision. Thus, MSC might be used in the future to prolong the durability of THA. A better understanding of the interactions between primary chronic inflammation, corrosion, osteolysis and hypersensitivity is mandatory to develop new therapeutic strategies, aiming at the reduction of the incidence of implant failures. In this article the underlying immunological mechanisms to aseptic loosening are presented.

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.].

Bone Cement Hypersensitivity in Patients With a Painful Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Case Series of Revision Using Custom Cementless Implants

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.

Sensitization to Implant Components Is Associated with Joint Replacement Failure: Identification and Revision to Nonallergenic Hardware Improves Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Over 90% of one million annual US joint replacements are highly successful. Nonetheless, 10% do poorly owing to infection or mechanical issues. Many implant components are sensitizers, and sensitization could also contribute to implant failure.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the prevalence of implant sensitization in joint failure patients, their clinical characteristics, and implant revision outcomes. We hypothesized that sensitized patients would improve when revised with nonallergenic materials.

METHODS

We prospectively enrolled 105 joint failure patients referred by orthopedic surgeons who had already excluded infection or mechanical causes. Patients provided informed consent, completed a history and physical examination, patch testing to metals and bone cement, and a nickel lymphocyte proliferation test. A study coordinator was able to contact 64% of patients (n = 67) 9 to 12 months later to evaluate outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 59% were sensitized to an implant component: 32% to metal and 37% to bone cement. The nickel lymphocyte proliferation test was 60% sensitive and 96% specific in diagnosing nickel sensitization. Most sensitized subjects reported no or uncertain histories of reactions to a specific material. Implant sensitized patients were younger and reported previous eczema, joint itching, and implant loosening. By 9 to 12 months later, most patients with a revised implant (revised) described significant improvement (16 of 22 revised for sensitization [P = .0003] vs 9 of 13 revised without sensitization [P = .047]) compared with patients without implant revision). All revised patients with sensitization used components to which they were not sensitized. Pain (P = .001), swelling (P = .035), and instability (P = .006) were significantly reduced in the revised sensitized group.

CONCLUSIONS

Sensitization to implant components is an important cause of unexplained joint replacement failure. Joint revisions based on sensitization information resulted in significant improvements.

The role of metal patch testing in evaluating patients for metallic prosthetic joint failure

BACKGROUND

Metal allergy may be an uncommon cause of prosthetic joint failure. There exist little data on patch testing to metals in this context and its impact on outcomes of joint revision in these patients.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the use and indications for metal patch testing in the evaluation of patients suspected of having metal allergy as a cause of failed joint replacements and to clarify the outcomes of patients revised with alternative metallic joints because of positive patch testing result.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis from January 2016 to April 2020 was completed on a patient cohort referred for evaluation of metal hypersensitivity. Charts were reviewed for age, biological sex, referring specialty, patch testing results, joint, revision status, and outcome measures. Biostatistical analysis and descriptive statistics were performed to determine patch testing performance and functional outcome trends among this patient cohort.

RESULTS

The sensitivity and specificity of patch testing, in general, are limited when evaluating patients with metallic joint replacements. However, the predictive value of testing seemed to improve with strongly positive patch testing results. Functional outcomes in patients when positive results were used to guide revision prosthesis revealed clinical improvement.

CONCLUSION

The attribution of metal allergy or hypersensitivity as a cause of failure in metal prosthetic joint replacement remains unproven. Some patients with positive histories and patch testing results that were used to modify the implanted prosthesis had improved functional outcomes. These results suggest that patch testing may be useful in patients with history of metal sensitivity and prosthetic failure.

A Mid- to Long-Term Follow-Up Experience with a Specific Metal-on-Metal Total Hip Arthroplasty Design

Purrpose  Metal-on-metal (MoM) total hip arthroplasty (THA) has been a subject of recent discussion and concern due to the early failures caused by local and systemic adverse reactions related to specific designs. The aim of this study is to analyze the outcomes and survival rates of a single brand of MoM implants implanted in a consecutive series of patients at a single institution.

Methods  Between 2007 and 2012, 116 (118 hips) patients were evaluated at a mean follow-up of 6.6 years after primary THA. The diagnosis leading to surgery was osteoarthritis (80 patients) and proximal femoral fracture (36 patients). A single design of THA was implanted. All patients were evaluated before surgery and postoperatively at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months by clinical scores and radiographic studies. The data analysis was made using Student's t -test.

Results  The minimum follow-up was of 4 years, with a mean follow-up of 6.6 years. Two aseptic loosenings of the acetabular component were recorded (one per group), which were not associated with local or systemic complications related to metal ion release. Both were revised by an isolated acetabular cup substitution with metal-on-polyethylene couplings. Nonprogressive radiolucency lines < 2 mm in zone 2 were observed in other six patients around the acetabular component without clinical manifestation (four in the arthritis group and two in the fracture group). Postoperative Harris Hip Score and SF-36 (36-Item Short Form Survey) score improved in both groups.

Conclusion  Despite several MoM implants showing early complications and failures, a specific MoM design may be associated with good clinical results at a mid- to long-term follow-up.

Level of Evidence  This is a therapeutic case series, Level 4 study.

Do Battlefield Injury-acquired Indwelling Metal Fragments Induce Metal Immunogenicity?

BACKGROUND

A battlefield-related injury results in increased local and systemic innate immune inflammatory responses, resulting in wound-specific complications and an increased incidence of osteoarthritis. However, little is known about whether severe injuries affect long-term systemic homeostasis, for example, immune function. Moreover, it also remains unknown whether battlefield-acquired metal fragments retained over the long term result in residual systemic effects such as altered immune reactivity to metals.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

Does a retained metal fragment from a battlefield injury contribute to increased (1) adaptive metal-specific immune responses, (2) systemically elevated metal ion serum levels, and (3) serum immunoglobulin levels compared with combat injuries that did not result in a retained metal fragment?

METHODS

In this pilot study, we analyzed metal-immunogenicity in injured military personnel and noninjured control participants using lymphocyte transformation testing (LTT, lymphocyte proliferation responses to cobalt, chromium and nickel challenge at 0.001, 0.01 and 0.1-mM concentrations in triplicate for each participant), serum metal ion analysis (ICP-mass spectroscopy), and serum immunoglobulin analysis (IgE, IgG, IgA, and IgM ). Military personnel with a battlefield-sustained injury self-recruited without any exclusion for sex, age, degree of injury. Those with battlefield injury resulting in retained metal fragments (INJ-FRAG, n = 20 male, mean time since injury ± SD was 12 ± 10 years) were compared with those with a battlefield injury but without retained metal fragments (INJ-NO-FRAG, n = 12 male, mean time since injury ± SD was 13 ± 12 years). A control group comprised of male noninjured participants was used to compare measured immunogenicity metrics (n = 11, males were selected to match battlefield injury group demographics).

RESULTS

Military participants with sustained metal fragments had increased levels of metal-induced lymphocyte responses. The lymphocyte stimulation index among military participants with metal fragments was higher than in those with nonretained metal fragments (stimulation index = 4.2 ± 6.0 versus stimulation index = 2.1 ± 1.2 (mean difference 2.1 ± 1.4 [95% confidence interval 5.1 to 0.8]; p = 0.07) and an average stimulation index = 2 ± 1 in noninjured controls. Four of 20 participants injured with retained fragments had a lymphocyte proliferation index greater than 2 to cobalt compared with 0 in the group without a retained metal fragment or 0 in the control participants. However, with the numbers available, military personnel with retained metal fragments did not have higher serum metal ion levels than military participants without retained metal fragment-related injuries or control participants. Military personnel with retained metal fragments had lower serum immunoglobulin levels (IgG, IgA, and IgM) than military personnel without retained metal fragments and noninjured controls, except for IgE. Individuals who were metal-reactive positive (that is, a stimulation index > 2) with retained metal fragments had higher median IgE serum levels than participants who metal-reactive with nonmetal injuries (1198 ± 383 IU/mL versus 171 ± 67 IU/mL, mean difference 1027 ± 477 IU/mL [95% CI 2029 to 25]; p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

We found that males with retained metal fragments after a battlefield-related injury had altered adaptive immune responses compared with battlefield-injured military personnel without indwelling metal fragments. Military participants with a retained metal fragment had an increased proportion of group members and increased average lymphocyte reactivity to common implant metals such as nickel and cobalt. Further studies are needed to determine a causal association between exposure to amounts of retained metal fragments, type of injury, personnel demographics and general immune function/reactivity that may affect personal health or future metal implant performance.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, therapeutic study.

Exploring the Incidence, Implications, and Relevance of Metal Allergy to Orthopaedic Surgeons

Introduction:

Allergic reactions to metal implants are increasingly recognized, but its relevance to the orthopaedic surgeon remains unclear. We evaluate the prevalence of metal allergies in a subset of the population and review the significance through a survey of the current literature.

Methods:

Preoperative and postoperative patients referred for metal allergy testing were divided into two groups; those with a history of dermatitis and those without. Patients with a history of dermatitis were offered skin patch testing that included the North American Contact Dermatitis core allergen panels in addition to our metal screening series. Patients without dermatitis were tested to the more limited patch testing metal screening series. Some patients with dermatitis opted for the more limited screening, whereas some patients without dermatitis underwent more extensive testing at their request or at the request of the referring clinician. Patch tests were evaluated at 2 and 4 days after placement.

Results:

Hundred patients were referred for metal allergy testing, 46 of whom were for reasons related to planned orthopaedic surgery. Of those tested, 60 patients had a history of dermatitis and 40 did not. Some patients were nonreactive to all tested allergens, whereas others demonstrated one or more positive skin patch test reactions. The number of positive reactions to each metal in patients with a history of dermatitis was the following: nickel 19, amalgam 10, palladium 10, copper 8, cobalt 5, mercury 5, tin 2, gold 1, titanium 1, and vanadium 1. The number of positive reactions to metals in patients without a history of dermatitis was the following: nickel 4, amalgam 5, palladium 4, mercury 4, cobalt 4, tin 2, copper 2, gold 1, vanadium 1, and molybdenum 1.

Discussion:

Metal allergy was common in the individuals referred for testing, with reactions to nickel and amalgam being the most commonly encountered. Some individuals experience more notable allergic reactions to implanted devices than others. Localized and generalized skin reactions have been reported, along with implant failure and loosening. Surgeons should be aware of the incidence of metal allergies and the potential consequences.

Hypersensitivity to orthopaedic implant manifested as erythroderma: Timing of implant removal

INTRODUCTION

Incidence of hypersensitivity to orthopaedic implant, once estimated in less than 1% of population, recently has increased to 10%. Controversies about the timing of implant removal remain, especially due to the fact that implant hypersensitivity may be a contributing factor to implant failure. We present a case report and literature reviews to establish the decision making for the timing of implant removal in the presence of implant hypersensitivity.

PRESENTATION OF CASE

Female, 42 years old with nonunion of mid-shaft tibia and fibula which was treated with ORIF with conventional SAE16 stainless steel plate and bone graft. A week after, she developed a generalized rash, which is later diagnosed as erythroderma, that relapsed despite adequate systemic corticosteroid. Poor healing of surgical site wound were marked. After the implant removal, the cutaneous condition improved and no relapse were found.

DISCUSSION

Management of hypersensitivity to implants involved corticosteroid administration, removal or replacement of implants, or implants coating with polytetrafluoroethylene. Currently there are no specific guidelines regulating the management of implant allergy based on the timing of the onset, especially in fracture cases. The decision-making would be straightforward if union was already achieved. Otherwise, controversies would still occur. In this paper, we proposed an algorithm regarding the steps in managing metal allergy due to implant in fracture cases.

CONCLUSION

Despite the concerns regarding implant survival in hypersensitivity cases, the decision whether the implant should be removed or replaced should be based on the time and condition of the fracture healing process.

Metal hypersensitivity in total hip and knee arthroplasty: Current concepts

Metal hypersensitivity (MHS) is a rare complication of total joint arthroplasty that has been linked to prosthetic device failure when other potential causes have been ruled out. The purpose of this review was to conduct an analysis of existing literature in order to get a better understanding of the pathophysiology, presentation, diagnosis, and management of MHS. It has been described as a type IV hypersensitivity reaction to the metals comprising prosthetic implants, often nickel and cobalt-chromium. Patients suffering from this condition have reported periprosthetic joint pain and swelling as well as cutaneous, eczematous dermatitis. There is no standard for diagnosis MHS, but tests such as patch testing and lymphocyte transformation testing have demonstrated utility, among others. Treatment options that have demonstrated success include administration of steroids and revision surgery, in which the existing metal implant is replaced with one of less allergenic materials. Moreover, the definitive resolution of symptoms has most commonly required revision surgery with the use of different implants. However, more studies are needed in order to understand the complexity of this subject.

Three cases of metallosis associated with spine instrumentation

The characteristic trait of metallosis is the presence of tissue staining. Analyzing explanted revision hardware from spine surgeries and performing ICPMS/AES analysis on removed tissue samples, a clinically relevant definition for metallosis may be developed. Results of the analysis identified hardware fretting wear and corrosion, and ICP-MS/AES analysis identified elevated metal ion concentrations in all cases. This supports the hypothesis that corrosion may be linked to poor health outcomes and potential need for revision surgery. Using failure analysis methods, corrosion products from orthopedic spine implants can be identified to begin to characterize metallosis in a clinically relevant manner. Failure analysis for patients undergoing revision spine surgery for other causes. Using failure analysis methods we conducted a retrieval analysis of explanted hardware and tissue. Implant failure with surrounding tissue metal staining is a current issue in the field of orthopedics. Specifically in spine, this issue is under reported and over looked as a clinically significant finding. Metallosis is most commonly used to describe the presence of tissue staining however this is not a clinically relevant definition. There is a need for further research to provide a better understanding of metallosis leading to better patient outcomes. Patients were screened for this study during a radiological review prior to surgery. All explanted hardware was documented and inspected for signs of wear and corrosion using non-destructive testing. A tissue sample that is normally removed and discarded was collected for ICP-MS/AES analysis. The presence of fretting corrosion, galling and corrosion fatigue was found on all explanted hardware. Cr levels are significantly higher than what was previously published as normal in muscle 0.03  μg/g. One case was a 4 order of magnitude elevation with the other 2 approximately 2 orders of magnitude increase. Titanium and Co concentrations are also significantly increased. The Ca to P ratio for all samples is approximately 1.7:1 suggesting some form of apatitic crystal present due to drying of the tissues. In all cases, the Al, Mo, V, Co, content in surrounding tissue is significantly elevated >10× above "normal," 8.4 ± 4.8; 1.61 ± 1.41; 0.06 ± 0.03; 1.35 ± 1.97 μg/g respectively. A "normal" reference titanium level could only be found for whole blood, 0.00072 ± 0.1412 μ/g. Iron and Ni measurements are within typical values presented in previous studies. No single mechanism for the release of metal ion in a patient is clear. Evidence suggests a tribocorrosive process due to both wear and environmental factors. Specific biologic mechanisms, such as the possible presence of bacteria may affect the fretting and corrosion of spinal instrumentation must be explored in conjunction with thorough review of patient outcomes. Such an effort can potentially reduce patient readmission and increase successful patient outcomes.

Allergic or Hypersensitivity Reactions to Orthopaedic Implants

Allergic or hypersensitivity reactions to orthopaedic implants can pose diagnostic and therapeutic challenges. Although 10% to 15% of the population exhibits cutaneous sensitivity to metals, deep-tissue reactions to metal implants are comparatively rare. Nevertheless, the link between cutaneous sensitivity and clinically relevant deep-tissue reactions is unclear. Most reactions to orthopaedic devices are type IV, or delayed-type hypersensitivity reactions. The most commonly implicated allergens are nickel, cobalt, and chromium; however, reactions to nonmetal compounds, such as polymethyl methacrylate, antibiotic spacers, and suture materials, have also been reported. Symptoms of hypersensitivity to implants are nonspecific and include pain, swelling, stiffness, and localized skin reactions. Following arthroplasty, internal fixation, or implantation of similarly allergenic devices, the persistence or early reappearance of inflammatory symptoms should raise suspicions for hypersensitivity. However, hypersensitivity is a diagnosis of exclusion. Infection, as well as aseptic loosening, particulate synovitis, instability, and other causes of failure must first be eliminated.

Making Sense of Metal Allergy and Hypersensitivity to Metallic Implants in Relation to Hand Surgery

All metals implanted into a biological system undergo some degree of corrosion depending upon its composition. The electrochemical process of corrosion produces free metal ions, which may activate the host's immune system through a variety of mechanisms. Whereas dermal metal hypersensitivity is common, affecting 10% to 15% of the population, the immune reaction from implanted metals is much less common (< 0.1%), but has been associated with metal allergy and hypersensitivity producing a multitude of patient symptoms. Superficial symptoms may be mild to severe forms of dermatitis, urticaria, pruritus, and vasculitis, whereas deep sequelae include metallosis-related pseudotumor, implant loosening, and joint stiffness. Currently, there are clinical tests to evaluate patients for metal hypersensitivity, but there is little agreement regarding the ideal timing and clinical situation prompting the work-up of a patient for a metal allergy or hypersensitivity. An understanding of the epidemiology, etiology, basic science, diagnostic testing, and treatment of patients with suspected metal allergy, as it pertains to the current literature, will aid orthopedic and plastic surgeons of all subspecialties in the management of patients requiring metallic implants.

Metal Hypersensitivity Reactions to Orthopedic Implants

Total hip and knee replacement surgery using metal alloy devices is common. Type IV allergic reactions to these implants occur, though infrequently. While uncommon, peri-implant metal allergic reactions may cause significant morbidity for the affected individual-including aseptic loosening, pseudotumor formation and frank device failure. It is challenging to predict who will have these reactions, even in those with established pre-implant metal allergy. At this time, the scientific literature clearly supports few conclusions. Despite this, we believe several conclusions can be made: routine pre-implant testing in asymptomatic individuals is not indicated; listen to patient's concerns about metal allergy if the concern arises; patch testing is probably the best pre- and post-implant screening test; post-implantation testing is controversial and even positive LTT or patch test does not definitively diagnose morbidity from a metal allergy; and complete recovery following revision placement of an immunologically inert device is diagnostic. More research is needed to scientifically approach this issue.

No Increased Risk of Knee Arthroplasty Failure in Patients With Positive Skin Patch Testing for Metal Hypersensitivity: A Matched Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

It is unclear whether a positive skin patch test for metal allergy in patients with skin hypersensitivity to metals is associated with an increased risk of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) failure. Our aim was to determine whether patients with a history of metal allergy who had a positive skin patch test (SPT+) had worse outcomes after primary TKA compared with those with a negative skin patch test and compared with controls.

METHODS

Over 12 years, 127 patients underwent 161 TKA after skin patch testing (SPT; 56 were positive). Cases were matched by age, gender, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, implant type, and implant manufacturer to 161 control knee arthroplasties without any prior history of metal allergy and no SPT. Median follow-up was 5.3 years. Differences in outcome measures were assessed between groups.

RESULTS

Patients with a SPT+ to metal did not have a higher complication, reoperation, or revision rates compared with patients with a SPT- and matched controls. Survivorship free of revision at 5 years was 98.1% for SPT+; 100% for SPT-; 97.6% for SPT+ controls, 99.0% for SPT- controls. There was no statistically significant difference in postoperative pain between SPT+ and SPT- patients and matched controls.

CONCLUSION

This study was designed to evaluate the effect of metal hypersensitivity on TKA outcomes and the role of SPT in patients before TKA. In this study, a SPT+ for metals was of little practical value in predicting the midterm outcome after TKA and cannot be strongly recommended as a method to guide the selection of implant type.

The Inflammatory Phenotype in Failed Metal-On-Metal Hip Arthroplasty Correlates with Blood Metal Concentrations

INTRODUCTION

Hip arthroplasty is the standard treatment of a painful hip destruction. The use of modern metal-on-metal (MOM) bearing surfaces gained popularity in total hip arthroplasties during the last decade. Recently, worrisome failures due to adverse reaction to metal debris (ARMD), including pseudotumor response, have been widely reported. However, the pathogenesis of this reaction remains poorly understood. The aim of the present study was to investigate the ARMD response by flow cytometry approach.

METHODS

Sixteen patients with a failed Articular Surface Replacement (ASR) hip prosthesis were included in the study. Samples of pseudotumor tissues collected during revision surgery were degraded by enzyme digestion and cells were typed by flow cytometry. Whole blood chromium and cobalt concentrations were analyzed with mass spectrometry before revision surgery.

RESULTS

Flow cytometry analysis showed that the peri-implant pseudotumor tissue expressed two principal phenotypes, namely macrophage-dominated and T-lymphocyte-dominated response; the average portions being 54% (macrophages) and 25% (T-lymphocytes) in macrophage-dominated inflammation and 20% (macrophages) and 54% (T-lymphocytes) in T-lymphocyte-dominated response. The percentages of B-lymphocytes and granulocytes were lower in both phenotypes. Interestingly, the levels of blood chromium and cobalt were significantly higher in patients with macrophage-dominated response.

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest that the adverse tissue reactions induced by MOM wear particles contain heterogeneous pathogeneses and that the metal levels are an important factor in the determination of the inflammatory phenotype. The present results support the hypothesis that higher metal levels cause cytotoxicity and tissue injury and macrophages are recruited to clear the necrotic debris. On the other hand, the adverse response developed in association with lower metal levels is T-lymphocyte-dominated and is likely to reflect hypersensitivity reaction.

Contact dermatitis: a practice parameter-update 2015

This parameter was developed by the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters, which represents the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI); the American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (ACAAI); and the Joint Council of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. The AAAAI and the ACAAI have jointly accepted responsibility for establishing "Contact Dermatitis: A Practice Parameter-Update 2015." This is a complete and comprehensive document at the current time. The medical environment is changing and not all recommendations will be appropriate or applicable to all patients. Because this document incorporated the efforts of many participants, no single individual, including members serving on the Joint Task Force, are authorized to provide an official AAAAI or ACAAI interpretation of these practice parameters. Any request for information or interpretation of this practice parameter by the AAAAI or ACAAI should be directed to the Executive Offices of the AAAAI, the ACAAI, and the Joint Council of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. These parameters are not designed for use by the pharmaceutical industry in drug development or promotion. Previously published practice parameters of the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters for Allergy & Immunology are available at http://www.JCAAI.org or http://www.allergyparameters.org.

Patient-Reported Allergies Are Associated With Poorer Patient Satisfaction and Outcomes After Lower Extremity Arthroplasty: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Anecdotal evidence suggests that patient-reported allergies (PRAs) may exhibit prognostic value for patient-reported outcomes after lower extremity arthroplasty. This study's purpose was to investigate associations between PRAs, patient satisfaction and outcomes after total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA). PRAs in 274 patients undergoing primary THA and 257 patients receiving primary TKA were reviewed retrospectively. Satisfaction scores, baseline Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC), 2-year postoperative WOMAC and length-of-stay (LOS) were analyzed with PRAs. Increasing number of PRAs was significantly associated with worse satisfaction scores and worse WOMAC scores for TKA and THA, and it was significantly associated with increased LOS for TKA. These results may have implications for patient counseling and risk-adjusted outcome models.

Complications Related to Metal-on-Metal Articulation in Trapeziometacarpal Joint Total Joint Arthroplasty

Adverse reactions to metal-on-metal (MoM) prostheses are well known from total hip joint resurfacing arthroplasty with elevated serum chrome or cobalt, pain and pseudo tumor formation. It may, however, also be seen after total joint replacement of the trapeziometacarpal joint using MoM articulation, and we present two cases of failure of MoM prostheses due to elevated metal-serum levels in one case and pseudo tumor formation in another case. Furthermore, we suggest a diagnostic algorithm for joint pain after MoM trapeziometacarpal joint replacement based on published experiences from MoM hip prostheses and adverse reactions to metal.

Biomaterial hypersensitivity: is it real? Supportive evidence and approach considerations for metal allergic patients following total knee arthroplasty

The prospect of biomaterial hypersensitivity developing in response to joint implant materials was first presented more than 30 years ago. Many studies have established probable causation between first-generation metal-on-metal hip implants and hypersensitivity reactions. In a limited patient population, implant failure may ultimately be related to metal hypersensitivity. The examination of hypersensitivity reactions in current-generation metal-on-metal knee implants is comparatively limited. The purpose of this study is to summarize all available literature regarding biomaterial hypersensitivity after total knee arthroplasty, elucidate overall trends about this topic in the current literature, and provide a foundation for clinical approach considerations when biomaterial hypersensitivity is suspected.

Metal release and metal allergy after total hip replacement with resurfacing versus conventional hybrid prosthesis

BACKGROUND

Metal-on-metal (MOM) total hip arthroplasties were reintroduced because of the problems with osteolysis and aseptic loosening related to polyethylene wear of early metal-on-polyethylene (MOP) arthroplasties. The volumetric wear rate has been greatly reduced with MOM arthroplasties; however, because of nano-size wear particles, the absolute number has been greatly increased. Thus, a source of metal ion exposure with the potential to sensitize patients is present. We hypothesized that higher amounts of wear particles result in increased release of metal ions and ultimately lead to an increased incidence of metal allergy.

METHODS

52 hips in 52 patients (median age 60 (51-64) years, 30 women) were randomized to either a MOM hip resurfacing system (ReCap) or a standard MOP total hip arthoplasty (Mallory Head/Exeter). Spot urine samples were collected preoperatively, postoperatively, after 3 months, and after 1, 2, and 5 years and tested with inductively coupled plasma-sector field mass spectrometry. After 5 years, hypersensitivity to metals was evaluated by patch testing and lymphocyte transformation assay. In addition, the patients answered a questionnaire about hypersensitivity.

RESULTS

A statistically significant 10- to 20-fold increase in urinary levels of cobalt and chromium was observed throughout the entire follow-up in the MOM group. The prevalence of metal allergy was similar between groups.

INTERPRETATION

While we observed significantly increased levels of metal ions in the urine during the entire follow-up period, no difference in prevalence of metal allergy was observed in the MOM group. However, the effect of long-term metal exposure remains uncertain.

Metal hypersensitivity in total joint arthroplasty

OBJECTIVE

To review the clinical manifestations, testing methods, and treatment options for hypersensitivity reactions to total joint arthroplasty procedures.

DATA SOURCES

Studies were identified using MEDLINE and reference lists of key articles.

STUDY SELECTIONS

Randomized controlled trials were selected when available. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of peer-reviewed literature were included, as were case series and observational studies of clinical interest.

RESULTS

Total joint arthroplasty procedures are increasing, as are the hypersensitivity reactions to these implants. Evidence is not conclusive as to whether metal joint implants increase metal sensitivity or whether metal sensitivity leads to prosthesis failure. Currently, patch testing is still the most widely used method for determining metal hypersensitivity; however, there are no standardized commercial panels specific for total joint replacements available currently. In vitro testing has shown comparable results in some studies, but its use in the clinical setting may be limited by the cost and need for specialized laboratories. Hypersensitivity testing is generally recommended before surgery for patients with a reported history of metal sensitivity. In cases of metal hypersensitivity-related joint failure, surgical revision ultimately may be required. Knowledge about joint replacement hypersensitivity reactions becomes vital because the approach to the evaluation depends on appropriate testing to guide recommendations for future arthroplasty procedures.

CONCLUSION

Evaluation of hypersensitivity reactions after total joint arthroplasty requires a systematic approach, including a careful history, targeted evaluation with skin testing, and in vitro studies.

Strong association between smoking and the risk of revision in a cohort study of patients with metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty

Thus far the ability to predict who will develop early failure following the insertion of a metal-on-metal (MoM) bearing has been very limited. Our objective was to assess the effect of smoking on failure rates in patients with MoM bearing, compared with patients with ceramic-on-polyethylene (CoP) bearing. From a prospective hospital-based registry we included all primary THAs operated upon between 1/2001 and 12/2011 with MoM or CoP bearings of the same cup design and head size (28 mm). We compared revision rates through 10/2013 classified by smoking status and type of bearing. We included 1,964 patients (median age 71, 57% women), 663 with MoM and 1,301 with CoP bearing. Mean follow-up was 6.9 years (range 1.8-12.8). Revisions were required for 56 THAs. In patients with MoM bearing the adjusted incidence rate of revision among ever-smokers was four times greater than among never-smokers (95% CI 1.4-10.9). Among those with CoP bearing, the rate ratio was only 1.3 (95% CI 0.6-2.5). We found a strong association between smoking and increased failure of MoM THAs. In contrast, the association was weak for patients with CoP bearing. Smoking might be a trigger or an effect amplifier for adverse reactions to metal debris from MoM bearings.

Prospective analysis of human leukocyte functional tests reveals metal sensitivity in patients with hip implant

Background

The aim of the study was to examine the reactivity of peripheral human leukocytes to various metal ions prior and following hip replacement in order to investigate implant-induced metal sensitivity.

Methods

Three patient groups were set up: (1) individuals without implants and no history of metal allergy (7 cases), (2) individuals without implants and known history of metal allergy (7 cases), and (3) patients undergoing cementless hip replacement (40 cases). Blood samples were taken in groups 1 and 2 at three different occasions; in group 3, prior and 3, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months after surgery. Peripheral leukocytes were separated and left either untreated or challenged with Ti, NiCl₂, CoCl₂, CrCl₃, and phytohemagglutinin. Cell proliferation, cytokine release, and leukocyte migration inhibition assays were performed. Metal-induced reactivity was considered when all three assays showed significant change. Skin patch tests were also carried out.

Results

Both skin patch tests and leukocyte functional tests were negative in group 1, and both were positive in group 2. In group 3, after 6 months, 12% of the patients showed reactivity to the tested metals except for NiCl₂. Following the 36-month period, 18% of group three became sensitive to metals (including all the earlier 12%). In contrast, patch tests were negative at each time point in group 3.

Conclusions

Orthopedic implant material may induce metal reactivity after implantation in a manner where susceptibility is yet to be elucidated. Leukocyte triple assay technique might be a useful tool to test implant material-related sensitivity.

No allergic reaction after TKA in a chrome-cobalt-nickel-sensitive patient: case report and review of the literature

Hypersensitivity to metallic implants remains relatively unpredictable and poorly understood. Although 20-25 % of total joint arthroplasty patients develop metal sensitivity, only a few highly susceptible persons (<1 %) exhibit symptoms. We present a case report of a fifty-two-year-old woman with a preoperatively documented metal allergy who underwent bilateral total knee arthroplasty using a titanium-niobium-coated implant on one side and a chrome-cobalt implant on the other side because of a logistics problem. At 2-year follow-up, no clinical symptoms of allergy or loosening of the implant were observed. Level of evidence IV.

Diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infections in clinical practice

The diagnosis of a periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) can be challenging, either because of the variable clinical presentation or because of previous antimicrobial treatment interfering with the detection of the pathogen. In recent years, various means to diagnose PJI have been analyzed. These include invasive and non-invasive laboratory tests, imaging procedures, and novel techniques such as sonication of implants and the use of molecular microbiology. In this review, both established and novel diagnostic procedures are presented. An algorithm for detecting PJI in patients with acute and chronic symptoms is proposed.