Allergy Considerations in Implanted Neuromodulation Devices
- PMID: 33428821
- DOI: 10.1111/ner.13332
Allergy Considerations in Implanted Neuromodulation Devices
Abstract
Objectives: Allergic reactions are rare and poorly understood complications of neuromodulation device implantation. There are currently no guidelines for management of allergic reactions to these devices and their components. Here we review the published cases of allergic reactions to implanted neuromodulatory devices and leverage the experiences of other specialties that deal with similar complications to formulate recommendations for prevention and management.
Materials and methods: A review and assessment of the literature.
Results: Allergic reactions to a number of implantable devices have been observed and published. In dentistry and orthopedics, metals such as nickel are the most frequent cause of allergic reactions. In interventional cardiology, where devices closely resemble neuromodulatory devices, titanium, silicone, and polyurethanes are the most common causes of allergic reactions. In neurosurgery, allergic reactions to implantable neuromodulatory devices are rare, and we summarize 13 cases published to date. Such allergic reactions generally present as local dermatitis, erythema, and pruritus, which can be difficult to distinguish from surgical site infection. In one published case, symptoms resolved with corticosteroid treatment, but all other cases required explantation. The successful reimplantation with a modified device was reported in some cases.
Conclusions: Patients should be screened for a personal history of contact allergy before implantation procedures. A multidisciplinary approach to suspected cases of postoperative allergic reactions involving collaboration between neurosurgeons and other implanting physicians, dermatologists or allergists, and device manufacturers is recommended. In cases where an allergic reaction is suspected, an infectious etiology should be ruled out first. Clinical suspicion can then be supported with the use of patch testing, interpreted by an experienced dermatologist or allergist. If patch testing supports an allergic etiology, the implanting physician and the device manufacturer can work together to modify the device for safe reimplantation.
Keywords: Allergic reaction; allergy; complications; deep brain stimulation (DBS); electrodes; hardware failure; hypersensitivity; neuromodulation; responsive neurostimulation (RNS); spinal cord stimulation (SCS); vagus nerve stimulation (VNS).
© 2021 International Neuromodulation Society.
References
REFERENCES
-
- Greatbatch W, Holmes CF. History of implantable devices. IEEE Eng Med Biol Mag 1991;10:38-41.
-
- Hawkins NM, Grubisic M, Andrade JG et al. Long-term complications, reoperations and survival following cardioverter-defibrillator implant. Heart 2018;104:237-243.
-
- Rolston JD, Englot DJ, Starr PA, Larson PS. An unexpectedly high rate of revisions and removals in deep brain stimulation surgery: analysis of multiple databases. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 2016;33:72-77.
-
- Bendersky D, Yampolsky C. Is spinal cord stimulation safe? A review of its complications. World Neurosurg 2014;82:1359-1368.
-
- Johansson SGO, Hourihane JO, Bousquet J et al. A revised nomenclature for allergy: an EAACI position statement from the EAACI nomenclature task force. Allergy 2001;56:813-824.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
