Literature DB >> 11232659

Cutaneous metal sensitivity in patients with orthopaedic injuries.

M F Swiontkowski1, J Agel, J Schwappach, P McNair, M Welch.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Manufactures of orthopaedic fracture implants have turned to titanium in a pure form and an alloy during the past ten to fifteen years. Although primarily because of the biomechanical properties of this metal, concern for allergy to nickel and chromium ions in stainless steel was a factor in these decisions.
OBJECTIVES: To document the incidence of baseline sensitivity to metal ions and the incidence of conversion to sensitivity to one of three ions in stainless steel in a population of trauma patients at a Level I trauma center.
DESIGN: Prospective, consecutive patient series.
SETTING: Level I trauma center. PATIENTS: Patients eighteen years of age and older with no history of metallic implants were recruited for this study between October 1995 and July 1997. Four hundred ninety-three patients had a Finn chamber device with chromium, nickel, and cobalt ions, which were read using a photographic scale on day three. Two hundred forty-two of these patients had placement of a second patch, at a mean interval of 187 days (range 45 to 589 days). INTERVENTION: Internal fixation of fracture or osteotomy with metal implant. MAIN OUTCOME MANAGEMENT: Cutaneous reactivity to metal ions.
RESULTS: Prevalence of sensitivity to chromium was 0.2 percent, to nickel 1.3 percent, and to cobalt 1.8 percent. Rates for conversion from a negative to positive status were 2.7 percent for chromium, 3.8 percent for nickel, and 3.8 percent for cobalt. Rates for desensitization (i.e., converting from a positive to negative status) were 2.1 percent for nickel and 3.8 percent for cobalt.
CONCLUSION: The prevalence of sensitivity to nickel, cobalt, and chromium is apparently low. Similarly, internal fixation devices composed of stainless steel appear to result in an equal incidence of conversion to metal ionic sensitivity and desensitization to metal ions. It is conceivable that cutaneous sensitivity is not representative of deep immune response.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11232659     DOI: 10.1097/00005131-200102000-00002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Orthop Trauma        ISSN: 0890-5339            Impact factor:   2.512


  12 in total

1.  Bearing exchange in the management of pseudotumours.

Authors:  M A Kemp; A Mitra; T Mendes da Costa; R F Spencer
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 1.891

2.  [Metallurgical differentiation of cobalt-chromium alloys for implants].

Authors:  U Holzwarth; P Thomas; W Kachler; J Göske; A Schuh
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 1.087

Review 3.  [Titanium or steel as osteosynthesis material : Systematic literature search for clinical evidence].

Authors:  Alexander Joeris; Sabine Goldhahn; Elke Rometsch; Dankward Höntzsch
Journal:  Unfallchirurg       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 1.000

4.  Painful knee arthroplasty: definition and overview.

Authors:  Christian Carulli; Marco Villano; Giovanni Bucciarelli; Caterina Martini; Massimo Innocenti
Journal:  Clin Cases Miner Bone Metab       Date:  2011-05

5.  [Allergic potential of titanium implants].

Authors:  A Schuh; P Thomas; W Kachler; J Göske; L Wagner; U Holzwarth; R Forst
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 1.087

6.  [Orthopedic surgical implants and allergies: joint statement by the implant allergy working group (AK 20) of the DGOOC (German association of orthopedics and orthopedic surgery), DKG (German contact dermatitis research group) and dgaki (German society for allergology and clinical immunology)].

Authors:  P Thomas; A Schuh; J Ring; M Thomsen
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 1.087

Review 7.  Myths and legends in orthopaedic practice: are we all guilty?

Authors:  Nirmal C Tejwani; Igor Immerman
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2008-08-26       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  Self-reported metal hypersensitivity in patients undergoing unicondylar knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Halis Atıl Atilla; Hüseyin Bilgehan Çevik; Mutlu Akdoğan; Hakan Aslan
Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma       Date:  2020-10-05

Review 9.  Biomaterial hypersensitivity: is it real? Supportive evidence and approach considerations for metal allergic patients following total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Andrew J Mitchelson; Craig J Wilson; William M Mihalko; Thomas M Grupp; Blaine T Manning; Douglas A Dennis; Stuart B Goodman; Tony H Tzeng; Sonia Vasdev; Khaled J Saleh
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2015-03-25       Impact factor: 3.411

10.  [Orthopedic surgical implants and allergies. Joint statement by the Implant Allergy Working Group (AK 20) of the DGOOC (German Association of Orthopedics and Orthopedic Surgery), DKG (German Contact Dermatitis Research Group) and DGAKI (German Society for Allergology and Clinical Immunology)].

Authors:  P Thomas; A Schuh; J Ring; M Thomsen
Journal:  Hautarzt       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 1.198

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.