Metal hypersensitivity reactions to implants: opinions and practices of patch testing dermatologists
- PMID: 24201465
- DOI: 10.1097/DER.0b013e3182a67d90
Metal hypersensitivity reactions to implants: opinions and practices of patch testing dermatologists
Abstract
Background: Cutaneous metal hypersensitivity reactions (MHR) are common but rare with implanted devices.
Objectives: This study aimed to characterize the opinions of dermatologists who are actively evaluating/advising patients with MHR.
Methods: A questionnaire was distributed to all individuals who attended the European Society of Contact Dermatitis (ESCD) 2012 and the American Contact Dermatitis Society 2013 meetings.
Results: A total of 119 individuals responded with a participation rates of 10% (ESCD) and 32% (American Contact Dermatitis Society). Ninety-six percent of the respondents evaluate MHR and 91% were attending physicians. Orthopedic and dental devices were common problems compared with cardiovascular devices. Patch testing is the top choice for evaluating MHR. Lymphocyte transformation and intradermal tests are rarely used. Eighty-two percent of the respondents evaluate plastic/glue components in symptomatic patients postimplant. Most dermatologists use a tray specifically for joint allergy or a history-based custom array of allergens. Those patients with a strong clinical history of metal allergy should be evaluated before metal implantation (54%), whereas others forgo evaluation and recommend a titanium implant based on history alone (38%). Diagnostic criteria for postimplant reactions were evaluated. Eight percent of the respondents felt that no evaluation was necessary, with ESCD respondents being significantly more likely to not recommend evaluation (P = 0.001).
Conclusions: Metal hypersensitivity reactions consultation requests are common for preimplant and postimplant issues. Patch testing is currently the best test for MHR.
Similar articles
-
The effect of patch testing on surgical practices and outcomes in orthopedic patients with metal implants.Arch Dermatol. 2012 Jun;148(6):687-93. doi: 10.1001/archdermatol.2011.2561. Arch Dermatol. 2012. PMID: 22351785
-
Patch test practices and perceptions of Chinese dermatologists: results of a cross-sectional survey.Contact Dermatitis. 2012 Apr;66(4):205-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0536.2011.02025.x. Contact Dermatitis. 2012. PMID: 22404195
-
Patch testers' opinions regarding diagnostic criteria for metal hypersensitivity reactions to metallic implants.Dermatitis. 2013 Jul-Aug;24(4):183-5. doi: 10.1097/DER.0b013e31829cb113. Dermatitis. 2013. PMID: 23857019
-
Patch Testing for Evaluation of Hypersensitivity to Implanted Metal Devices: A Perspective From the American Contact Dermatitis Society.Dermatitis. 2016 Sep-Oct;27(5):241-7. doi: 10.1097/DER.0000000000000210. Dermatitis. 2016. PMID: 27649347 Review.
-
Hypersensitivity reactions to metallic implants - diagnostic algorithm and suggested patch test series for clinical use.Contact Dermatitis. 2012 Jan;66(1):4-19. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0536.2011.01971.x. Epub 2011 Sep 29. Contact Dermatitis. 2012. PMID: 21957996 Review.
Cited by
-
The association between metal allergy, total knee arthroplasty, and revision: study based on the Danish Knee Arthroplasty Register.Acta Orthop. 2015 Jun;86(3):378-83. doi: 10.3109/17453674.2014.999614. Epub 2015 Jan 13. Acta Orthop. 2015. PMID: 25582229 Free PMC article.
-
Utility of Patch Testing and Lymphocyte Transformation Testing in the Evaluation of Metal Allergy in Patients with Orthopedic Implants.Cureus. 2019 Sep 25;11(9):e5761. doi: 10.7759/cureus.5761. Cureus. 2019. PMID: 31723520 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Metal Hypersensitivity Reactions to Orthopedic Implants.Dermatol Ther (Heidelb). 2017 Mar;7(1):53-64. doi: 10.1007/s13555-016-0162-1. Epub 2016 Dec 19. Dermatol Ther (Heidelb). 2017. PMID: 27995484 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Hypersensitivity to Orthopedic Implants: A Review of the Literature.Rheumatol Ther. 2017 Jun;4(1):45-56. doi: 10.1007/s40744-017-0062-6. Epub 2017 Mar 31. Rheumatol Ther. 2017. PMID: 28364382 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Patellofemoral Joint Replacement and Nickel Allergy: An Unusual Presentation.Case Rep Orthop. 2015;2015:635082. doi: 10.1155/2015/635082. Epub 2015 Oct 12. Case Rep Orthop. 2015. PMID: 26543657 Free PMC article.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources