Download PDF
J Knee Surg 2021; 34(03): 233-241
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1694984
Original Article

Patch Test Results and Outcome in Patients with Complications from Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Consecutive Case Series

Denis Sasseville 
1   Division of Dermatology, McGill University Health Centre, Montréal, Canada
,
Khuzama Alfalah
1   Division of Dermatology, McGill University Health Centre, Montréal, Canada
,
Evgeny Savin
1   Division of Dermatology, McGill University Health Centre, Montréal, Canada
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

The role of hypersensitivity in implant-related complications remains controversial. The objectives of our study were to (1) establish the prevalence of hypersensitivity to components of knee prostheses in patients referred to our contact dermatitis clinic, (2) determine if patients with post-surgery dermatitis have become sensitized, and (3) describe the outcome of patients with and without hypersensitivity. We reviewed the charts of patients referred from 2007 to 2018 and extracted demographic information, date, type, and site of implant, clinical presentation, and results of patch testing (PT) or lymphocyte transformation tests (LTT). We called most patients to gather data such as clinical outcome, nature, and timing of additional surgery. Statistical analysis included computation of conventional descriptive statistics. Because of the type of study design, only some categorical variables were tested for possible associations by analytical tools (cross-tabulation). Thirty-nine patients, 23 men (59.0%), and 16 women (41.0%), were included. Their mean age in years was 63.3 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 60.9–65.7) ranging from 39.0 to 79.0, (standard deviation) = 9.69, without statistically significant differences between males and females. Five patients had positive PT possibly relevant to their implant. Four patients had revision surgery and two improved. Of nine patients with dermatitis, one with relevant PT did not improve after revision, and the dermatitis was unrelated to TKA in eight. Of the 26 patients without dermatitis or relevant PT results, 9 had revisions because of incapacitating symptoms, and 5 improved. Hypersensitivity to implant components is a potential factor in the etiology of TKA complications. Patients with confirmed hypersensitivity may benefit from revision. Our study, however, did not detect statistically significant differences in outcome of revision surgery between patients with positive versus negative PT or LTT. In spite of this, we consider that patients with a history suggestive of metal, acrylate or aminoglycoside allergy should be tested preoperatively to avoid hypersensitivity-related postoperative complications. In the absence of hypersensitivity, some patients with incapacitating symptoms may also improve following revision.

Keywords

total knee arthroplasty - hypersensitivity - patch testing - lymphocyte transformation test - revision


Publication History

Received: 20 March 2019

Accepted: 03 July 2019

Article published online:
21 August 2019

© 2019. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Schalock PC, Crawford G, Nedorost S. et al. Patch testing for evaluation of hypersensitivity to implanted metal devices: a perspective from the American Contact Dermatitis Society. Dermatitis 2016; 27 (05) 241-247
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007; 89 (04) 780-785
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Zeng Y, Feng W, Li J. et al. A prospective study concerning the relationship between metal allergy and post-operative pain following total hip and knee arthroplasty. Int Orthop 2014; 38 (11) 2231-2236
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Lachiewicz PF, Watters TS, Jacobs JJ. Metal hypersensitivity and total knee arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2016; 24 (02) 106-112
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 DeKoven JG, Warshaw EM, Belsito DV. et al. North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch test results 2013–2014. Dermatitis 2017; 28 (01) 33-46
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Pinson ML, Coop CA, Webb CN. Metal hypersensitivity in total joint arthroplasty. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2014; 113 (02) 131-136
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Basko-Plluska JL, Thyssen JP, Schalock PC. Cutaneous and systemic hypersensitivity reactions to metallic implants. Dermatitis 2011; 22 (02) 65-79
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Barranco VP, Soloman H. Eczematous dermatitis from nickel. JAMA 1972; 220 (09) 1244
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Kubba R, Taylor JS, Marks KE. Cutaneous complications of orthopedic implants. A two-year prospective study. Arch Dermatol 1981; 117 (09) 554-560
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Merle C, Vigan M, Devred D, Girardin P, Adessi B, Laurent R. Generalized eczema from vitallium osteosynthesis material. Contact Dermat 1992; 27 (04) 257-258
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Handa S, Dogra S, Prasad R. Metal sensitivity in a patient with a total knee replacement. Contact Dermat 2003; 49 (05) 259-260
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Hallab N, Merritt K, Jacobs JJ. Metal sensitivity in patients with orthopaedic implants. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2001; 83 (03) 428-436
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Thyssen JP, Menné T, Schalock PC, Taylor JS, Maibach HI. Pragmatic approach to the clinical work-up of patients with putative allergic disease to metallic orthopaedic implants before and after surgery. Br J Dermatol 2011; 164 (03) 473-478
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Niki Y, Matsumoto H, Otani T. et al. Screening for symptomatic metal sensitivity: a prospective study of 92 patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty. Biomaterials 2005; 26 (09) 1019-1026
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Granchi D, Cenni E, Tigani D, Trisolino G, Baldini N, Giunti A. Sensitivity to implant materials in patients with total knee arthroplasties. Biomaterials 2008; 29 (10) 1494-1500
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Lachapelle JM, Maibach HI. Patch Testing and Prick Testing: A Practical Guide. Official publication of the ICDRG, Third Edition. Heidelberg: Springer; 2012
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Reed KB, Davis MDP, Nakamura K, Hanson L, Richardson DM. Retrospective evaluation of patch testing before or after metal device implantation. Arch Dermatol 2008; 144 (08) 999-1007
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Aneja S, Taylor JS, Billings SD, Honari G, Sood A. Post-implantation erythema in 3 patients and a review of telangiectatic reticular erythema. Contact Dermat 2011; 64 (05) 280-288
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Do HK, Mousdicas N. Reticular telangiectatic erythema after total knee replacement surgery: a report of two cases. JBJS Case Connect 2013; 3 (02) e49
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Verma SB, Mody B, Gawkrodger DJ. Dermatitis on the knee following knee replacement: a minority of cases show contact allergy to chromate, cobalt or nickel but a causal association is unproven. Contact Dermat 2006; 54 (04) 228-229
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Furrer S, Scherer Hofmeier K, Grize L, Bircher AJ. Metal hypersensitivity in patients with orthopaedic implant complications-a retrospective clinical study. Contact Dermat 2018; 79: 91-98
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Atanaskova Mesinkovska N, Tellez A, Molina L. et al. The effect of patch testing on surgical practices and outcomes in orthopedic patients with metal implants. Arch Dermatol 2012; 148 (06) 687-693
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Yang S, Dipane M, Lu CH, Schmarlzried TP, McPherson EJ. Lymphocyte Transformation Testing (LTT) in cases of pain following total knee arthroplasty: little relationship to histopathologic findings and revision outcomes. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2019; 101 (03) 257-264
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Edwards SA, Gardiner J. Hypersensitivity to benzoyl peroxide in a cemented total knee arthroplasty: cement allergy. J Arthroplasty 2007; 22 (08) 1226-1228
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Bircher A, Friederich NF, Seelig W, Scherer K. Allergic complications from orthopaedic joint implants: the role of delayed hypersensitivity to benzoyl peroxide in bone cement. Contact Dermat 2012; 66 (01) 20-26
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Thomas B, Kulichova D, Wolf R, Summer B, Mahler V, Thomas P. High frequency of contact allergy to implant and bone cement components, in particular gentamicin, in cemented arthroplasty with complications: usefulness of late patch test reading. Contact Dermat 2015; 73 (06) 343-349
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Thomas P, von der Helm C, Schopf C. et al. Patients with intolerance reactions to total knee replacement: combined assessment of allergy diagnostics, periprosthetic histology, and peri-implant cytokine expression pattern. BioMed Res Int 2015; 2015: 910156
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar