Clinical factors before or after device implantation in predicting metal hypersensitivity reactions: A retrospective study
Idy Tama b c d, JiaDe Yua c e f, Lauren N. Kog h, Peter C. Schalocki j✉
- aDepartment of Dermatology Massachusetts General Hospital Boston Massachusetts
- bTufts University School of Medicine Boston Massachusetts
- cDepartment of Dermatology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
- dTufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts
- eHarvard School of Medicine Boston Massachusetts
- fHarvard School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts
- gHarvard Combined Dermatology Residency Harvard Medical School Boston Massachusetts
- hHarvard Combined Dermatology Residency, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
- iDepartment of Dermatology Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth Hanover New Hampshire
- jDepartment of Dermatology, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, New Hampshire
- ✉Corresponding author
Papers open inside SciRah from the original publisher or repository; SciRah never hosts them.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Metal hypersensitivity reactions (MHR) as a cause of implant-related complications are highly debated and recommendations regarding pre-procedural allergy evaluation vary dramatically. OBJECTIVE: To examine patients referred before or after device implantation and identify factors that could be useful to guide the value of patch testing. METHODS: Patients who underwent patch testing pre- or post-device implantation between July 2006 and September 2016 were analyzed retrospectively. RESULTS: A series of 127 patients underwent patch testing: pre-implantation (n = 40) and post-implantation (n = 87). In the pre-implant group, a history of metal allergy demonstrated high sensitivity (0.94; 95% CI: 0.83-1.00) and negative likelihood ratio (0.17; 95% CI:0.02-1.29) for diagnosing MHR. No predictive value could be ascribed to any of the clinical symptoms (eg dermatitis, pain, swelling, implant failure, and/or other symptoms) for patients referred following orthopaedic and dental post device implantation. Eight patients in the orthopaedic group and six patients in dental group with relevant patch test reactions underwent implant revisions, and seven and five patients improved, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Pre-implant patch testing for selected individuals with a history of metal allergy can help guide implant choice. Post-implant patch testing may be helpful in some patients if other causes have been excluded, as patients with confirmed MHR benefited from revisions.
TL;DRMetal hypersensitivity reactions (MHR) as a cause of implant‐related complications are highly debated and recommendations regarding pre‐procedural allergy evaluation vary dramatically. (Semantic Scholar)

