Cargando…
Hypersensitivity to Orthopedic Implants: A Review of the Literature
Awareness of rare etiologies for implant failure is becoming increasingly important. In addition to the overall increase in joint arthroplasties, revision surgeries are projected to increase dramatically in the coming years, with volume increasing up to seven-fold between 2005 and 2030. The literatu...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Healthcare
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5443731/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28364382 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40744-017-0062-6 |
_version_ | 1783238609959124992 |
---|---|
author | Wawrzynski, Joseph Gil, Joseph A. Goodman, Avi D. Waryasz, Gregory R. |
author_facet | Wawrzynski, Joseph Gil, Joseph A. Goodman, Avi D. Waryasz, Gregory R. |
author_sort | Wawrzynski, Joseph |
collection | PubMed |
description | Awareness of rare etiologies for implant failure is becoming increasingly important. In addition to the overall increase in joint arthroplasties, revision surgeries are projected to increase dramatically in the coming years, with volume increasing up to seven-fold between 2005 and 2030. The literature regarding the relationship between metal allergy and implant failure is controversial. It has proven difficult to determine whether sensitization is a cause or a consequence of implant failure. Testing patients with functional implants is not a clinically useful approach, as the rate of hypersensitivity is higher in implant recipients than in the general population, regardless of the status of the implant. As a result of the ineffectiveness of preoperative patch testing for predicting adverse outcomes, as well as the high cost of implementing such patch testing as standard procedure, most orthopedists and dermatologists agree that an alternative prosthesis should only be considered for patients with a history of allergy to a metal in the standard implant. In patients with a failed implant requiring revision surgery, hypersensitivity to an implant component should be considered in the differential diagnosis. Because a metal allergy to implant components is currently not commonly considered in the differential for joint failure in the orthopedic literature, there should be improved communication and collaboration between orthopedists and dermatologists when evaluating joint replacement patients with a presentation suggestive of allergy. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5443731 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | Springer Healthcare |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-54437312017-06-09 Hypersensitivity to Orthopedic Implants: A Review of the Literature Wawrzynski, Joseph Gil, Joseph A. Goodman, Avi D. Waryasz, Gregory R. Rheumatol Ther Review Awareness of rare etiologies for implant failure is becoming increasingly important. In addition to the overall increase in joint arthroplasties, revision surgeries are projected to increase dramatically in the coming years, with volume increasing up to seven-fold between 2005 and 2030. The literature regarding the relationship between metal allergy and implant failure is controversial. It has proven difficult to determine whether sensitization is a cause or a consequence of implant failure. Testing patients with functional implants is not a clinically useful approach, as the rate of hypersensitivity is higher in implant recipients than in the general population, regardless of the status of the implant. As a result of the ineffectiveness of preoperative patch testing for predicting adverse outcomes, as well as the high cost of implementing such patch testing as standard procedure, most orthopedists and dermatologists agree that an alternative prosthesis should only be considered for patients with a history of allergy to a metal in the standard implant. In patients with a failed implant requiring revision surgery, hypersensitivity to an implant component should be considered in the differential diagnosis. Because a metal allergy to implant components is currently not commonly considered in the differential for joint failure in the orthopedic literature, there should be improved communication and collaboration between orthopedists and dermatologists when evaluating joint replacement patients with a presentation suggestive of allergy. Springer Healthcare 2017-03-31 /pmc/articles/PMC5443731/ /pubmed/28364382 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40744-017-0062-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2017 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) ), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. |
spellingShingle | Review Wawrzynski, Joseph Gil, Joseph A. Goodman, Avi D. Waryasz, Gregory R. Hypersensitivity to Orthopedic Implants: A Review of the Literature |
title | Hypersensitivity to Orthopedic Implants: A Review of the Literature |
title_full | Hypersensitivity to Orthopedic Implants: A Review of the Literature |
title_fullStr | Hypersensitivity to Orthopedic Implants: A Review of the Literature |
title_full_unstemmed | Hypersensitivity to Orthopedic Implants: A Review of the Literature |
title_short | Hypersensitivity to Orthopedic Implants: A Review of the Literature |
title_sort | hypersensitivity to orthopedic implants: a review of the literature |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5443731/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28364382 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40744-017-0062-6 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT wawrzynskijoseph hypersensitivitytoorthopedicimplantsareviewoftheliterature AT giljosepha hypersensitivitytoorthopedicimplantsareviewoftheliterature AT goodmanavid hypersensitivitytoorthopedicimplantsareviewoftheliterature AT waryaszgregoryr hypersensitivitytoorthopedicimplantsareviewoftheliterature |