R Eben1, R Walk, B Summer, S Maier, M Thomsen, P Thomas. 1. Klinik und Poliklinik für Dermatologie und Allergologie, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Frauenlobstrasse 9-11, 80337, München, Deutschland. Ricarda.Eben@med.uni-muenchen.de
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: There are case reports about patients with metal implant allergy. However, large-scale observations regarding frequency and elicitors are lacking. MATERIAL AND METHODS: For 5 years we have been collecting data in a metal allergy register. Information about history, clinical picture, and allergy test results in patients with suspected allergy to metal implants, mostly osteosynthesis and arthroplasty materials, is obtained by means of a special consultation and by report forms. RESULTS: Major complaints of the 239 patients were pain (68.2%), swelling (42.1%), and erythema (33.5%). A metal allergy was found in 29.6% of the patients, and 24.8% were allergic to potential bone cement components. In addition, peculiar reactions such as a persistent inflammatory response to metal particles in nickel/cobalt-allergic patients or the disappearance of complaints upon revision surgery using titanium-based materials were seen. CONCLUSION: After excluding causes such as infection or mechanical failure, allergy diagnosis using a patch test with implant metals and bone cement components is recommended in cases of suspected implant allergy.
INTRODUCTION: There are case reports about patients with metal implant allergy. However, large-scale observations regarding frequency and elicitors are lacking. MATERIAL AND METHODS: For 5 years we have been collecting data in a metalallergy register. Information about history, clinical picture, and allergy test results in patients with suspected allergy to metal implants, mostly osteosynthesis and arthroplasty materials, is obtained by means of a special consultation and by report forms. RESULTS: Major complaints of the 239 patients were pain (68.2%), swelling (42.1%), and erythema (33.5%). A metalallergy was found in 29.6% of the patients, and 24.8% were allergic to potential bone cement components. In addition, peculiar reactions such as a persistent inflammatory response to metal particles in nickel/cobalt-allergicpatients or the disappearance of complaints upon revision surgery using titanium-based materials were seen. CONCLUSION: After excluding causes such as infection or mechanical failure, allergy diagnosis using a patch test with implant metals and bone cement components is recommended in cases of suspected implant allergy.
Authors: Daniel Guenther; Peter Thomas; Daniel Kendoff; Mohamed Omar; Thorsten Gehrke; Carl Haasper Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2015-11-02 Impact factor: 3.075