Daniel Guenther1,2, Peter Thomas3, Daniel Kendoff4, Mohamed Omar5, Thorsten Gehrke4, Carl Haasper4. 1. Orthopaedic Department, Helios-Endo Klinik Hamburg, Holstenstraße 9, 22767, Hamburg, Germany. guenther.daniel@mh-hannover.de. 2. Trauma Department, Hannover Medical School (MHH), Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany. guenther.daniel@mh-hannover.de. 3. Department of Dermatology und Allergology, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Frauenlobstraße 9-11, 80337, Munich, Germany. 4. Orthopaedic Department, Helios-Endo Klinik Hamburg, Holstenstraße 9, 22767, Hamburg, Germany. 5. Trauma Department, Hannover Medical School (MHH), Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence of sensitisation to chromium, cobalt, nickel, or a cement component in patients who received endoprosthetic surgery at our institution. Also, we aimed to assess the portion related to allergic reactions in endoprosthetic revisions and to follow-up those patients after allergic reaction related revisions. METHODS: We selected patients with a pre-operative known sensitisation to chromium, cobalt, nickel, or a cement component for a post-operative allergic reaction. All patients who received revision surgery because of a potential allergic reaction were followed up post revision surgery. RESULTS: Eight hundred fifty-five patients were pre-operative known to have a sensitisation to chromium, cobalt, nickel, or a cement component. Six hundred eighty-two patients (79.8 %) received a primary arthroplasty, and 173 patients (20.2 %) received a revision surgery. Seventeen patients (2.0 %) were revised because of allergic reactions. Allergic reactions were the cause for approximately 0.2 % of all endoprosthetic revisions and for 9.8 % of revisions in patients with sensitisation to one of the reviewed components. Potential allergens were strictly avoided in the replaced prosthesis. Outcome scores improved post-operatively. CONCLUSIONS: The allergic patient should be thoroughly informed about potential reactions resulting from implant choice. Our study can serve as risk assessments by quantifying the incidence of allergic reactions due to endoprosthetic treatment.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence of sensitisation to chromium, cobalt, nickel, or a cement component in patients who received endoprosthetic surgery at our institution. Also, we aimed to assess the portion related to allergic reactions in endoprosthetic revisions and to follow-up those patients after allergic reaction related revisions. METHODS: We selected patients with a pre-operative known sensitisation to chromium, cobalt, nickel, or a cement component for a post-operative allergic reaction. All patients who received revision surgery because of a potential allergic reaction were followed up post revision surgery. RESULTS: Eight hundred fifty-five patients were pre-operative known to have a sensitisation to chromium, cobalt, nickel, or a cement component. Six hundred eighty-two patients (79.8 %) received a primary arthroplasty, and 173 patients (20.2 %) received a revision surgery. Seventeen patients (2.0 %) were revised because of allergic reactions. Allergic reactions were the cause for approximately 0.2 % of all endoprosthetic revisions and for 9.8 % of revisions in patients with sensitisation to one of the reviewed components. Potential allergens were strictly avoided in the replaced prosthesis. Outcome scores improved post-operatively. CONCLUSIONS: The allergicpatient should be thoroughly informed about potential reactions resulting from implant choice. Our study can serve as risk assessments by quantifying the incidence of allergic reactions due to endoprosthetic treatment.
Authors: R Eben; K-A Dietrich; C Nerz; S Schneider; A Schuh; I J Banke; F Mazoochian; P Thomas Journal: Dtsch Med Wochenschr Date: 2010-07-07 Impact factor: 0.628
Authors: Pablo Ariel Isidoro Slullitel; Rodrigo Brandariz; Jose Ignacio Oñativia; German Farfalli; Fernando Comba; Francisco Piccaluga; Martin Buttaro Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2018-11-30 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Frank S Fröschen; Nadine Gravius; Jan-Frederic Lau; Thomas Martin Randau; Eva Kaup; Max J Friedrich; Sascha Gravius Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2018-12-11 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Francesco Pisanu; Carlo Doria; Matteo Andreozzi; Marco Bartoli; Laura Saderi; Giovanni Sotgiu; Paolo Tranquilli Leali Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2018-09-29 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Benjamin Thomas; Maria Benedikt; Ali Alamri; Florian Kapp; Rainer Bader; Burkhard Summer; Peter Thomas; Eva Oppel Journal: J Orthop Surg Res Date: 2020-08-12 Impact factor: 2.359