Allergic complications from orthopaedic joint implants: the role of delayed hypersensitivity to benzoyl peroxide in bone cement

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.

Systemic allergic contact dermatitis to palladium, platinum, and titanium: mechanisms, clinical manifestations, prevalence, and therapeutic approaches

Contact dermatitis (CD) is an inflammatory skin disease of eczema that is elicited by chemicals or metal ions that have toxic effects without eliciting a T-cell response (contact elicitation) or by small reactive chemicals that modify proteins and induce innate and adaptive immune responses (contact allergens). The clinical condition is characterized by localized skin rash, pruritus, redness, swelling, and lesions, which are mainly detected by patch tests and lymphocyte stimulation. Heavy metals such as palladium (Pd), platinum (Pt), and titanium (Ti) are ubiquitous in our environment. These heavy metals have shown CD effects as allergic agents. Immunological responses result from the interaction of cytokines and T cells. Occupational metal CD accounts for most cases of work-related cutaneous disorders. In this systematic review, the allergic effects of heavy metals, including Pd, Pt, and Ti, and the mechanisms, clinical manifestations, prevalence, and therapeutic approaches are discussed in detail. Furthermore, the therapeutic approaches introduced to treat CD, including corticosteroids, topical calcineurin inhibitors, systemic immunosuppressive agents, phototherapy, and antihistamines, can be effective in the treatment of these diseases in the future. Ultimately, the insights identified could lead to improved therapeutic and diagnostic pathways.

The safety and efficiency of benzoyl peroxide for reducing Cutibacterium acnes in the shoulder: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Cutibacterium acnes (C. acnes), a common pathogen, contributes significantly to infections in shoulder surgery. Prevention of shoulder infection is crucial to improve postoperative functional recovery and reduce costs. This study aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the safety and efficacy of 5% benzoyl peroxide (BPO) application in the shoulder to decrease C. acnes.

Methods

Three electronic databases were searched as follows: PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases. Data extraction for this study was performed by two independent reviewers, and only level I and level II studies were included. The outcome data sources of individual studies were pooled. The fixed-effect model was used to determine the meta-analysis.

Results

There were five level I studies and five level II studies. The results showed that the 5% BPO group had a lower risk of C. acnes positivity [OR, 0.21 (0.15, 0.30), I2 = 24, p < 0.00001]. The pooled analysis results showed that there was no significant difference in the ability of 5% BPO and 5% BPO + clindamycin to reduce C. acnes. However, the lower rate of adverse events was significantly in favour of the non-BPO group compared with the 5% BPO group.

Conclusion

BPO can decrease C. acnes in the shoulder to prevent infection. However, the combination of BPO and clindamycin does not enhance this effect further.

Level of evidence

II, Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Allergic reaction and metal hypersensitivity after shoulder joint replacement

PURPOSE

Metal ion release may cause local and systemic effects and induce hypersensitivity reactions. The aim of our study is first to determine if implant-related hypersensitivity correlates to patient symptoms or not; second, to assess the rate of hypersensitivity and allergies in shoulder arthroplasty.

METHODS

Forty patients with shoulder replacements performed between 2015 and 2017 were studied with minimum 2-year follow-up; no patient had prior metal implants. Each patient underwent radiographic and clinical evaluation using the Constant-Murley Score (CMS), 22 metal and cement haptens patch testing, serum and urine tests to evaluate 12 metals concentration, and a personal occupational medicine interview.

RESULTS

At follow-up (average 45 ± 10.7 months), the mean CMS was 76 ± 15.9; no clinical complications or radiographic signs of loosening were detected; two nickel sulfate (5%), 1 benzoyl peroxide (2.5%) and 1 potassium dichromate (2.5%) positive findings were found, but all these patients were asymptomatic. There was an increase in serum aluminum, urinary aluminum and urinary chromium levels of 1.74, 3.40 and 1.83 times the baseline, respectively. No significant difference in metal ion concentrations were found when patients were stratified according to gender, date of surgery, type of surgery, and type of implant.

CONCLUSIONS

Shoulder arthroplasty is a source of metal ion release and might act as a sensitizing exposure. However, patch test positivity does not seem to correlate to hypersensitivity cutaneous manifestations or poor clinical results. Laboratory data showed small constant ion release over time, regardless of gender, type of shoulder replacement and implant used.

LEVELS OF EVIDENCE

Level II.

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.

Influence of Psychological Distress in Patients with Hypoallergenic Total Knee Arthroplasty. Treatment Algorithm for Patients with Metal Allergy and Knee Osteoarthritis

The outcome in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) depends on multiples factors, among them is the psychological condition. In addition, up 15 to 30% of the patients that undergo TKA show little or no improvement after surgery, which implies the diagnosis of a painful TKA is a challenge for the orthopedic surgeon, who must rule out a possible metal allergy (MA). It is considered an exclusion diagnosis. Due to the complex relationship between psychological condition and MA, and according to the worse results in patients treated with a hypoallergenic TKA, we asked: (1). What degree of psychological distress (PD) is present in patients who have a hypoallergenic TKA, and how does it influence the results of quality of life (QoL) and functional capacity. (2). Can we develop a new algorithm for patients with a possible MA that improves the outcomes? A pragmatic clinical study was carried out that included patients who underwent hypoallergenic TKA during three consecutive years. Quality of life and functional capacity were measured with (Western Ontario McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index) WOMAC index, the Short Form 12 questionnaire (SF-12) questionnaire, and the The EQ-5D-5L questionnaire essentially consists of two pages: the EQ-5D descriptive system and the EQ visual analogue scale (EQ VAS) (Euro-QoL-5D L-VAS (EQ5D)), in all patients. To assess PD, a Psychological Distress Score was developed. SPSS software was performed to statistical analysis, and Student´s test for independent variables with a p < 0.005 as statistically significant. A total of 72 anallergic TKAs in 64 patients were treated during this period; 31.3% of these patients showed features of PD before the surgery. According with the severity of the PD, 60% were classified as severe, 10% as moderate and 30% as mild. Patients with PD had statistically significant worse results on the final WOMAC, SF-12, and EQ5D questionnaires. The final scores of the physical subscale of the SF-12 and EQ5D showed better results in patients diagnosed by psychiatrist. Up to one third of the patients with hypoallergenic TKAs have PD, and their results are clearly inferior to those patients with MA without PD. When PD was diagnosed according with Psychological Distress Score, patients should be carefully assessed in order to determine if a specialist referral is recommended. According with our results, PD should be assessed either by the PCP or by us. If the PD is confirmed, a psychiatry referral is then requested for better preoperative management and treatment. We believe that this approach would lead to better TKA outcomes.

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.

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.

Decrease of Quality of Life, Functional Assessment and Associated Psychological Distress in Patients with Hypoallergenic Total Knee Arthroplasty

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is the final treatment for knee osteoarthritis, and 15-30% of patients show little or no improvement. This high percentage is related to aspects of the surgical technique, the selected implant, and specific patient characteristics. The aim of this study was to analyze whether there are differences in quality of life (QoL) and functional capacity among patients undergoing TKA with conventional implants compared to those treated with hypoallergenic oxinium implants. A pragmatic clinical study was carried out that included patients who underwent TKA between January 2013 and December 2015. During this period, 245 knees in 228 patients were treated. Eleven patients were excluded, leaving a sample of 161 conventionally treated knees, 72 knees treated with hypoallergenic implants, and one patient who received both implant types. In all patients, QoL and functional capacity were measured with the WOMAC index, the SF-12 questionnaire, and the Euro-Qol-5D L-VAS. We also assessed the psychological distress of each patient and related the findings to the functional results. The differences in QoL were tested using ANCOVA and propensity score matching (PSM) models adjusted for sex, age, weight, psychiatric history and associated complications. Patients who underwent TKA using conventional prostheses had significantly better scores on the total WOMAC index and in the pain domain (p < 0.05) than those who received hypoallergenic prostheses, but no significant differences were observed for the other domains in the ANCOVA. In contrast, with the PSM, we also found statistically significant differences in the difficulty domain of the WOMAC. Significant differences were found for the SF-12 mental health questionnaire results (p = 0.038), but the same did not occur for the physical health domain in the ANCOVA and PSM. We also found statistically significant differences in the Euro-Qol-5D index results (p = 0.041), but not in the VAS scale scores for the same questionnaire in the ANCOVA, and we did not find significant differences in either with the PSM. Patients with metal allergies and those who present psychological distress had WOMAC, SF-12, and Euro-Qol-5D results that were statistically significantly worse than those of patients who received conventional implants. Patients who underwent hypoallergic TKA had lower scores on the QoL and functional capacity scales than patients who received conventional Cr-Co implants. Additionally, patients with psychological distress had worse results on the questionnaires, and those with a metal allergy had even lower scores; the differences were statistically significant.

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.

Diagnosis of Metal Hypersensitivity in Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Case Report

Delayed type hypersensitivity (DTH) reactions are considered infrequent complications in arthroplasty, but have been recognized to be associated with devastating morbidity and substantial decrease in quality of life of affected patients. Chronic inflammation of artificial joints and associated loss of peri-implant bone often require revision surgery. Methods for the diagnosis of implant-related DTH are available but infrequently considered to the full extent. Sequential diagnostics based on exclusion of septic complications, local and systemic metal level determination, lymphocyte transformation testing (LTT), and local T cell subset analysis are required for an unequivocal DTH diagnosis. Here, we report on a patient with a history of chronic rheumatoid arthritis and an unfavorable outcome of unilateral knee arthroplasty. This case illustrates pitfalls and difficulties in the course of recurrent inflammation following joint replacement. In the early course, suspicion of low-grade bacterial infection led to three two-stage revisions. Afterwards, the joint was proven to be sterile. However, metal level quantification revealed release of especially cobalt and chromium from the joint, LTT indicated persisting cobalt and nickel sensitization and subset analysis of T cells from the synovium suggested DTH as a root cause for the inflammatory symptoms. This report aims to recommend the depicted diagnostic algorithm as an adequate tool for future DTH detection. Yet, systemic to local subset ratios for effector memory and regulatory T cells should be derived from sufficient patient numbers to establish it as a diagnostic marker. Moreover, future prospects regarding implant-related DTH diagnostics are discussed. Therapeutic options for the portrayed patient are proposed, considering pharmaceutical, cell-therapeutic and surgical aspects. Patients who experience peri-implant inflammation but do not have obvious mechanical or infectious problems remain a diagnostic challenge and are at high risk of being treated inadequately. Since potentially sensitizing materials are regularly used in arthroplasty, it is essential to detect cases of acute DTH-derived inflammation of an artificial joint at early postoperative stages. This would reduce the severity of inflammation-related long-term consequences for affected patients and may avoid unnecessary revision surgery.

Increased risk of eczema after joint replacement: A population-based retrospective cohort study

There are very few reports of eczema and other prosthetic-related allergic skin complications following arthroplasty. We aimed to assess the risk of eczema after joint replacement.We performed a retrospective population-based cohort study in 2024 joint replacement patients using the Longitudinal Health Insurance Database. For comparison, 8096 controls were selected, with 4 control subjects for each joint replacement patient matched for age, sex, and index year, to assess eczema risk. We examined 14-year cumulative eczema incidence associated with age, sex, immunity, disease history, and joint replacement location.Eczema rates in the joint replacement patients were 38% higher than in the control group (57.90 vs 41.84 per 1000 person-years, respectively). Compared with the control group, joint replacement patients showed a 1.35-fold increased risk of eczema according to the multivariable Cox model (95% Confidence interval [CI] = 1.23-1.49). Knee replacement patients had higher eczema risk compared with the control group (Hazard ratio [HR] = 1.45, 95% CI = 1.33-1.70). Stratified by study period, the joint replacement cohort had a higher eczema risk after the 3-month follow-up.Our study revealed that joint arthroplasty increased risk of eczema in this 14-year follow-up study, and this was not related to personal atopic history or gender.

A case series of cementless revision total knee arthroplasty in patients with benzoyl peroxide allergy

PURPOSE

The contact allergens nickel, cobalt, and chromium are often discussed as possible triggers of allergic reactions to orthopedic implants. Additionally, acrylates and polymerization additives in bone cement (e.g., benzoyl peroxide (BPO)) have been implicated as triggers of eczema, wound healing disorders, and aseptic implant loosening. We report about six patients with aseptic loosening after total knee arthroplasty (TKA), who underwent revision surgery after testing positive for BPO hypersensitivity.

METHODS

After clarification of possible other causes of implant failure, epicutaneous testing had been performed and the implants were replaced in a two-stage procedure with cementless, diaphyseal anchoring, hypoallergenic (TiNb-coated) revision endoprostheses.

RESULTS

Epicutaneous testing revealed a BPO allergy in all six patients and an additional nickel allergy in three of the six patients. There was no histopathological or microbiological evidence for a periprosthetic infection. The clinical follow-up showed a low level of pain with good function, a stable knee joint, and proper implant position. The Knee Society Score (KSS) with its subscales Knee Score and Functional Score improved post-operatively from 43 to 70 points and from 47.5 to 68.3 points, respectively. Two implant-specific complications occurred: femoral stress shielding two years post-operatively with no further need for action and aseptic loosening of the tibial stem with the need of revision three years post-operatively.

CONCLUSIONS

The regression of complaints after replacement with cementless and nickel-free revision implants suggests allergic implant intolerance. Implantation of a cementless, hypoallergenic endoprosthesis might, therefore, be a surgical treatment strategy in patients with evidence of allergies.

The Evidence Behind Peroxide in Orthopedic Surgery

Peroxide is a strong oxidizing agent and disinfectant frequently used in orthopedic surgery. The authors conducted a systematic literature review of peroxide in orthopedic surgery, evaluating use, complications, efficacy, and appropriate concentrations. One hundred seventy-five reports were identified, with 24 being eligible for analysis. Orthopedic surgeons used peroxide for irrigation and bacterial reduction in various procedures. Complications included cytotoxicity, allergic reactions, suture damage, and inflammation. Use of the standard concentration of 3% peroxide and standard time in situ are without evidence. Laboratory studies suggest that diluted concentrations retain the benefit of bacterial decolonization without increasing the risk for complications. [Orthopedics. 2018; 41(6):e756-e764.].

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.

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.

A Case of a Paediatric Patient With Allergic Contact Dermatitis to Benzoyl Peroxide

Allergic contact dermatitis to benzoyl peroxide can occur in up to 6.5% of those with a history of exposure to this potential allergen. Conversely, irritant contact dermatitis is very common with benzoyl peroxide and can be differentiated from allergic contact dermatitis based on the patient's history and clinical signs and symptoms. We present a case of a paediatric patient with patch test-confirmed severe allergic contact dermatitis to benzoyl peroxide requiring hospitalisation and systemic treatment.

Hypersensitivity to Orthopedic Implants: A Review of the Literature

Awareness of rare etiologies for implant failure is becoming increasingly important. In addition to the overall increase in joint arthroplasties, revision surgeries are projected to increase dramatically in the coming years, with volume increasing up to seven-fold between 2005 and 2030. The literature regarding the relationship between metal allergy and implant failure is controversial. It has proven difficult to determine whether sensitization is a cause or a consequence of implant failure. Testing patients with functional implants is not a clinically useful approach, as the rate of hypersensitivity is higher in implant recipients than in the general population, regardless of the status of the implant. As a result of the ineffectiveness of preoperative patch testing for predicting adverse outcomes, as well as the high cost of implementing such patch testing as standard procedure, most orthopedists and dermatologists agree that an alternative prosthesis should only be considered for patients with a history of allergy to a metal in the standard implant. In patients with a failed implant requiring revision surgery, hypersensitivity to an implant component should be considered in the differential diagnosis. Because a metal allergy to implant components is currently not commonly considered in the differential for joint failure in the orthopedic literature, there should be improved communication and collaboration between orthopedists and dermatologists when evaluating joint replacement patients with a presentation suggestive of allergy.

Allergies in orthopaedic and trauma surgery

Hypersensitivity reactions to implants in orthopaedic and trauma surgery are a rare but devastating complication. They are considered as a delayed-type of hypersensitivity reaction (type IV), characterized by an antigen activation of sensitized T-lymphocytes releasing various cytokines and may result in osteoclast activation and bone resorption. Potential haptens are originated from metal alloys or bone-cement. A meta-analysis has confirmed a higher probability of developing a metal hypersensitivity postoperatively and noted a greater risk of failed replacements compared to stable implants. Hypersensitivity to implants may present with a variety of symptoms such as pain, joint effusion, delayed wound/bone healing, persistent secretion, allergic dermatitis (localized or systemic), clicking noises, loss of joint function, instability and failure of the implant. Various diagnostic options have been offered, including patch testing, metal alloy patch testing, histology, lymphocyte transformation test (LTT), memory lymphocyte immunostimulation assay (MELISA), leukocyte migration inhibition test (LIF) and lymphocyte activation test (LAT). No significant differences between in vivo and in vitro methods have been found. Due to unconvincing evidence for screening methods, predictive tests are not recommended for routine performance. Infectious aetiology always needs to be excluded. As there is a lack of evidence on large-scale studies with regards to the optimal treatment option, management currently relies on individual case-by-case decisions. Several options for patients with (suspected) metal-related hypersensitivity exist and may include materials based on ceramic, titanium or oxinium or modified surfaces. Promising results have been reported, but long-term experience is lacking. More large-scaled studies are needed in this context. In patients with bone-cement hypersensitivity, the component suspected for hypersensitivity should be avoided. The development of (predictive) biomarkers is considered as a major contribution for the future.

Diagnostic Algorithm for Residual Pain After Total Knee Arthroplasty

Although total knee arthroplasty is a successful and cost-effective procedure, patient dissatisfaction remains as high as 50%. Postoperative residual knee pain after total knee arthroplasty, with or without crepitation, is a major factor that contributes to patient dissatisfaction. The most common location for residual pain after total knee arthroplasty is anteriorly. Because residual pain has been associated with an un-resurfaced patella, this review includes only registry data and total knee arthroplasty with patella replacement. Some suggest that the pathogenesis of residual knee pain may be related to mechanical stimuli that activate free nerve endings around the patellofemoral joint. Various etiologies have been implicated in residual pain, including (1) low-grade infection, (2) midflexion instability, and (3) component malalignment with patellar maltracking. Less common causes include (4) crepitation and patellar clunk syndrome; (5) patellofemoral symptoms, including overstuffing and avascular necrosis of the patella; (6) early aseptic loosening; (7) hypersensitivity to metal or cement; (8) complex regional pain syndrome; and (9) pseudoaneurysm. Because all of these conditions can lead to residual pain, identifying the etiology can be a difficult diagnostic challenge. Often, patients with persistent pain and normal findings on radiographs and laboratory workup may benefit from a diagnostic injection or further imaging. However, up to 10% to 15% of patients with residual pain may have unexplained pain. This literature review summarizes the findings on the causes of residual pain and presents a diagnostic algorithm to facilitate an accurate diagnosis for residual pain after total knee arthroplasty.

A rare case of pseudotumor formation associated with methyl methacrylate hypersensitivity in a patient following cemented total knee arthroplasty

Hypersensitivity to orthopedic implant materials has been well documented with potential catastrophic consequences if not addressed pre-operatively. The spectrum of reactions is wide, from mild non-specific pain with localized erythema to severe periprosthetic inflammatory destruction and pseudotumor formation. It is therefore essential to identify patients who have or are at risk for implant-associated hypersensitivity. Although metal sensitivity is commonly cited as the cause of these reactions, methyl methacrylate (MMA) has rarely been implicated. To the best of our knowledge, methyl methacrylate-associated pseudotumor formation has not yet been described. The following is a case report of a 68-year-old female who, after undergoing a routine cemented right total knee arthroplasty, developed a painless, enlarging mass during a 13-year period. This mass was found to be a pseudotumor in association with methyl methacrylate hypersensitivity. A review of pseudotumor pathogenesis, methyl methacrylate hypersensitivity, and preoperative preventative care is discussed.

Allergy to Surgical Implants

Surgical implants have a wide array of therapeutic uses, most commonly in joint replacements, but also in repair of pes excavatum and spinal disorders, in cardiac devices (stents, patches, pacers, valves), in gynecological implants, and in dentistry. Many of the metals used are immunologically active, as are the methacrylates and epoxies used in conjunction with several of these devices. Allergic responses to surgical components can present atypically as failure of the device, with nonspecific symptoms of localized pain, swelling, warmth, loosening, instability, itching, or burning; localized rash is infrequent. Identification of the specific metal and cement components used in a particular implant can be difficult, but is crucial to guide testing and interpretation of results. Nickel, cobalt, and chromium remain the most common metals implicated in implant failure due to metal sensitization; methacrylate-based cements are also important contributors. This review will provide a guide on how to assess and interpret the clinical history, identify the components used in surgery, test for sensitization, and provide advice on possible solutions. Data on the pathways of metal-induced immune stimulation are included. In this setting, the allergist, the dermatologist, or both have the potential to significantly improve surgical outcomes and patient care.

[Histopathological diagnostic work-up of joint endoprosthesis-associated pathologies]

Increasing classes of joint implants and the combination of materials results in increased and wear-associated pathologies. According to the revised consensus classification, the following types can be recognized at conventional histological examination: Type I, particle-induced type; Type II, infection type; Type III, combination type; Type IV, indifferent type; Type V arthrofibrotic type; Type VI, allergic/immunological/toxic adverse reactions and Type VII, bone pathologies. Wear particles are histopathologically characterized according to the Krenn particle algorithm which focuses on a descriptive identification of wear particles and the differentiation of other nonwear-related particles. Type VII is considered histologically when there is evidence of a perivascular/interstitial lymphocytic CD20- and CD3-positive infiltrate, presence of mast cells and eosinophils, and tissue necrosis/infarction associated with implant wear material. Since wear particle-induced toxicity cannot be differentiated with certainty from hypersensitivity/allergic reaction on histological examination, immunological-allergological and clinical data should be used as supplementary criteria for the differential diagnosis. Tissue sampling should be performed from periprosthetic soft tissue with location mapping and when feasible also from bone tissue. Additional information regarding the type of implant and clinical, radiological, immunological, and microbiology data should be available to the pathologist. Further immunohistochemical studies are recommended in the following settings: infection (CD15, CD20, CD68); prosthesis-associated arthrofibrosis (β‑catenin); allergic/immunologic/toxic adverse reactions (CD20, CD3, CD4, CD8, CD117 and for T‑cell characterization T‑bet, GATA-3, and FOXP3).

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.

Clinical and diagnostic challenges of metal implant allergy using the example of orthopaedic surgical implants: Part 15 of the Series Molecular Allergology

The focus of this review are allergic reactions to orthopaedic-surgical metal implants. The spectrum of metal implant associated potential allergic reactions encompasses eczema, impaired wound and fracture healing, infection-mimicking reactions, effusions, pain and loosening. Nickel, cobalt and chromium seem to be the predominant eliciting allergens. Despite the growing number of respective publications the topic „metal implant allergy“ remains a diagnostic challenge. Initially, differential diagnoses should always be excluded in cooperation with surgery collegues. It is recommended to perform a combined evaluation of medical history, clinical findings, patch testing and histology. The lymphocyte transformation test (LTT) can indicate metal sensitization, but it needs careful interpretation. Allergists can provide a substantial contribution to this interdisciplinary topic.

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.

Systemic contact dermatitis and allergy to biomedical devices

Systemic contact dermatitis (SCD) refers to a skin condition where an individual who is cutaneously sensitized to an allergen will subsequently react to that same allergen or a cross-reacting allergen via the systemic route. It occurs to allergens including metals, medications, and foods. There has been recent interest in metal allergy as it relates to the implantation of devices such as orthopedic, dental, cardiac, and gynecologic implants. This review will briefly address all causes of systemic contact dermatitis with a special and expanded focus on metal implant allergy. We present literature on SCD to various metal biomedical devices, patch testing for diagnosis of metal allergy pre and post implantation and treatment.

[What's new in clinical dermatology?]

Medical articles published between September 2011 and September 2012 were selected based on themes related to clinical dermatology. Therapeutics, pediatrics, oncology, sexually transmitted diseases, and major system diseases such as sarcoidosis and connective tissue disease were not retained. The subjects reviewed were: (i) epidemiology, particularly the risks of exposure to infectious agents; (ii) diagnostic tools, dominated by dermoscopy and teledermatology; (iii) the description of new disorders and the reassessment of older diseases; (iv) complementary tests in certain types of dermatosis; (v) a few large "works in progress" in dermatology, where clinical aspects and biological research intertwine and contribute one to the other.