Cargando…

Allergic Sensitization to Nickel and Implanted Metal Devices: A Perspective

There is continuing interest in the interrelationships between allergic sensitization to metal allergens, metal implants, and the development of adverse reactions to implanted devices. Here, we focus on sensitization to nickel (although, in practice, it is commonly not possible to distinguish betwee...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kimber, Ian, Basketter, David A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9674446/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34845168
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/DER.0000000000000819
_version_ 1784833154555576320
author Kimber, Ian
Basketter, David A.
author_facet Kimber, Ian
Basketter, David A.
author_sort Kimber, Ian
collection PubMed
description There is continuing interest in the interrelationships between allergic sensitization to metal allergens, metal implants, and the development of adverse reactions to implanted devices. Here, we focus on sensitization to nickel (although, in practice, it is commonly not possible to distinguish between events associated with nickel and other potentially allergenic metals used in devices). The purpose of this article was to review whether exposure to nickel resulting from implanted devices is associated with the development of de novo sensitization to nickel and also whether nickel sensitization, either newly acquired or pre-existing, has a causal relationship with adverse health effects. In addressing these issues, a variety of devices, including metal-on-metal hip implants, cardiac and endovascular stents and filters, and the gynecologic implant Essure, are considered. Also addressed is the question of whether pre-operative assessment of nickel allergy (and allergy to other implant metals) is required. The conclusions reached are that (a) sensitization can potentially be acquired as the result of exposure to implants containing nickel, but is not a common occurrence; (b) sensitization to nickel and/or other metal allergens is very rarely a cause of adverse reactions to implants; and (c) routine preoperative patch testing for sensitization to nickel is unnecessary, unless there is a significant clinical history of nickel allergy.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9674446
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-96744462022-11-28 Allergic Sensitization to Nickel and Implanted Metal Devices: A Perspective Kimber, Ian Basketter, David A. Dermatitis Reviews There is continuing interest in the interrelationships between allergic sensitization to metal allergens, metal implants, and the development of adverse reactions to implanted devices. Here, we focus on sensitization to nickel (although, in practice, it is commonly not possible to distinguish between events associated with nickel and other potentially allergenic metals used in devices). The purpose of this article was to review whether exposure to nickel resulting from implanted devices is associated with the development of de novo sensitization to nickel and also whether nickel sensitization, either newly acquired or pre-existing, has a causal relationship with adverse health effects. In addressing these issues, a variety of devices, including metal-on-metal hip implants, cardiac and endovascular stents and filters, and the gynecologic implant Essure, are considered. Also addressed is the question of whether pre-operative assessment of nickel allergy (and allergy to other implant metals) is required. The conclusions reached are that (a) sensitization can potentially be acquired as the result of exposure to implants containing nickel, but is not a common occurrence; (b) sensitization to nickel and/or other metal allergens is very rarely a cause of adverse reactions to implants; and (c) routine preoperative patch testing for sensitization to nickel is unnecessary, unless there is a significant clinical history of nickel allergy. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2022 2021-11-25 /pmc/articles/PMC9674446/ /pubmed/34845168 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/DER.0000000000000819 Text en Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American Contact Dermatitis Society. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) , where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal.
spellingShingle Reviews
Kimber, Ian
Basketter, David A.
Allergic Sensitization to Nickel and Implanted Metal Devices: A Perspective
title Allergic Sensitization to Nickel and Implanted Metal Devices: A Perspective
title_full Allergic Sensitization to Nickel and Implanted Metal Devices: A Perspective
title_fullStr Allergic Sensitization to Nickel and Implanted Metal Devices: A Perspective
title_full_unstemmed Allergic Sensitization to Nickel and Implanted Metal Devices: A Perspective
title_short Allergic Sensitization to Nickel and Implanted Metal Devices: A Perspective
title_sort allergic sensitization to nickel and implanted metal devices: a perspective
topic Reviews
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9674446/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34845168
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/DER.0000000000000819
work_keys_str_mv AT kimberian allergicsensitizationtonickelandimplantedmetaldevicesaperspective
AT basketterdavida allergicsensitizationtonickelandimplantedmetaldevicesaperspective