Download PDF
J Knee Surg 2023; 36(01): 006-017
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1729618
Original Article

Allergy Testing Has No Correlation with Intraoperative Histopathology from Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty for Implant-Related Metal Allergy

Michael-Alexander Malahias
1   Stavros Niarchos Foundation Complex Joint Reconstruction Center, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York
,
Thomas W. Bauer
2   Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York
,
Philip P. Manolopoulos
1   Stavros Niarchos Foundation Complex Joint Reconstruction Center, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York
,
Peter K. Sculco
1   Stavros Niarchos Foundation Complex Joint Reconstruction Center, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York
,
Geoffrey H. Westrich
1   Stavros Niarchos Foundation Complex Joint Reconstruction Center, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Lymphocyte transformation testing (LTT) is often used in the workup for possible metal allergy after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) but the correlation of this test with other diagnostic metal-allergy findings in patients undergoing revision TKA for suspected metal allergy has not been established. A single-center, single-surgeon cohort of 19 TKAs in which both components were revised for presumed implant-related metal allergy based on history, physical, and LTT testing, to nonnickel-containing implants were retrospectively identified. Histopathologic samples obtained intraoperatively were semiquantitatively analyzed using both the Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) synovial pathology score and the Campbell aseptic lymphocyte-dominant vasculitis-associated lesion (ALVAL) score. As histopathology control group, we included in the study an additional cohort of 17 patients who received aseptic revision TKA and had no history of reported or tested metal sensitivity. All preoperative LTT results were highly reactive to nickel. However, this did not correlate with local periarticular tissue response in 18 of 19 cases which demonstrated a low HSS synovial score (mean: 3.8 ± 2.8, of a maximum score of 28) and the low Campbell ALVAL scores (mean: 2.5/10 ± 1.3, of a maximum score of 10). There were not any significant differences between the study group (suspected implant-related metal allergy) and the control group (nonsuspected implant-related metal allergy) in regard to (1) the Campbell score and (2) the HSS synovial inflammatory score. Knee Society Clinical Rating System (KSCRS) function score improved significantly after revision (mean postoperative increase: 34.0 ± 17. 2; p < 0.001), as well as mean visual analog scale (VAS) pain (mean postoperative decrease: 33.3 ± 26.4; p < 0.01) score. The short-term survival rate (at mean follow-up of 26.1 months) of this patient cohort was 100%. In this cohort of revised TKA patients with suspected nickel allergy based on clinical presentation and LTT positive results, intraoperative histopathology was essentially normal. However, all patients with suspected nickel allergy showed a significant clinical and functional improvement with excellent short-term survival rates. The clinical significance of a positive LTT needs further study.

Keywords

total knee arthroplasty - revision knee arthroplasty - implant-related metal allergy - nickel allergy


Publication History

Received: 10 August 2020

Accepted: 12 March 2021

Article published online:
01 May 2021

© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.

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

 

  • References

  • 1 Innocenti M, Vieri B, Melani T, Paoli T, Carulli C. Metal hypersensitivity after knee arthroplasty: fact or fiction?. Acta Biomed 2017; 88 (2S): 78-83
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Pinson ML, Coop CA, Webb CN. Metal hypersensitivity in total joint arthroplasty. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2014; 113 (02) 131-136
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Thomsen M, Rozak M, Thomas P. Pain in a chromium-allergic patient with total knee arthroplasty: disappearance of symptoms after revision with a special surface-coated TKA--a case report. Acta Orthop 2011; 82 (03) 386-388
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Middleton S, Toms A. Allergy in total knee arthroplasty: a review of the facts. Bone Joint J 2016; 98-B (04) 437-441
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Lachiewicz PF, Watters TS, Jacobs JJ. Metal hypersensitivity and total knee arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2016; 24 (02) 106-112
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Caicedo MS, Solver E, Coleman L, Hallab NJ. Metal sensitivities among TJA patients with post-operative pain: indications for multi-metal LTT testing. J Long Term Eff Med Implants 2014; 24 (01) 37-44
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Schalock PC, Menné T, Johansen JD. et al. Hypersensitivity reactions to metallic implants - diagnostic algorithm and suggested patch test series for clinical use. Contact Dermat 2012; 66 (01) 4-19
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 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
  • 9 Basko-Plluska JL, Thyssen JP, Schalock PC. Cutaneous and systemic hypersensitivity reactions to metallic implants. Dermatitis: contact, atopic, occupational. Drug. 2011; 22 (02) 65-79
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Frigerio E, Pigatto PD, Guzzi G, Altomare G. Metal sensitivity in patients with orthopaedic implants: a prospective study. Contact Dermat 2011; 64 (05) 273-279
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 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
  • 12 Münch HJ, Jacobsen SS, Olesen JT. et al. The association between metal allergy, total knee arthroplasty, and revision: study based on the Danish Knee Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop 2015; 86 (03) 378-383
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Bravo D, Wagner ER, Larson DR, Davis MP, Pagnano MW, Sierra RJ. No increased risk of knee arthroplasty failure in patients with positive skin patch testing for metal hypersensitivity: a matched cohort study. J Arthroplasty 2016; 31 (08) 1717-1721
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Guenther D, Thomas P, Kendoff D, Omar M, Gehrke T, Haasper C. Allergic reactions in arthroplasty: myth or serious problem?. Int Orthop 2016; 40 (02) 239-244
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 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
  • 16 Hallab NJ, Caicedo M, Finnegan A, Jacobs JJ. Th1 type lymphocyte reactivity to metals in patients with total hip arthroplasty. J Orthop Surg Res 2008; 3: 6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Yang S, Dipane M, Lu CH, Schmalzried 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
  • 18 Zondervan RL, Vaux JJ, Blackmer MJ, Brazier BG, Taunt Jr CJ. Improved outcomes in patients with positive metal sensitivity following revision total knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Surg Res 2019; 14 (01) 182
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Malahias MA, Bauer TW, Gu A, Nocon AA, De Martino I, Sculco PK. Questioning the clinical relevance of positive post-implantation allergy testing for metal hypersensitivity in total knee arthroplasty: a didactic case report. HSS J 2020; 16 (Suppl. 02) 485-489
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Demetris AJ, Murase N, Lee RG. et al. Chronic rejection. A general overview of histopathology and pathophysiology with emphasis on liver, heart and intestinal allografts. Ann Transplant 1997; 2 (02) 27-44
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Davies AP, Willert HG, Campbell PA, Learmonth ID, Case CP. An unusual lymphocytic perivascular infiltration in tissues around contemporary metal-on-metal joint replacements. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005; 87 (01) 18-27
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Willert HG, Buchhorn GH, Fayyazi A. et al. Metal-on-metal bearings and hypersensitivity in patients with artificial hip joints. A clinical and histomorphological study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005; 87 (01) 28-36
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Koff MF, Esposito C, Shah P. et al. MRI of total hip arthroplasty correlates with implant wear and tissue reactions: a cross-sectional study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2019; 477: 59-174
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Orange DE, Agius P, DiCarlo EF. et al; Accelerating Medicines Partnership in Rheumatoid Arthritis and Lupus Network. Identification of three rheumatoid arthritis disease subtypes by machine learning integration of synovial histologic features and RNA sequencing data. Arthritis Rheumatol 2018; 70 (05) 690-701
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Campbell P, Ebramzadeh E, Nelson S, Takamura K, De Smet K, Amstutz HC. Histological features of pseudotumor-like tissues from metal-on-metal hips. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010; 468 (09) 2321-2327
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Lizaur-Utrilla A, Gonzalez-Parreño S, Martinez-Mendez D, Miralles-Muñoz FA, Lopez-Prats FA. Minimal clinically important differences and substantial clinical benefits for Knee Society Scores. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2020; 28 (05) 1473-1478
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Danoff JR, Goel R, Sutton R, Maltenfort MG, Austin MS. How much pain is significant? Defining the minimal clinically important difference for the visual analog scale for pain after total joint arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33 (7S): S71-75.e2
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Granchi D, Cenni E, Giunti A, Baldini N. Metal hypersensitivity testing in patients undergoing joint replacement: a systematic review. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2012; 94 (08) 1126-1134
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Keeney JA, Clohisy JC, Curry M, Maloney WJ. Revision total knee arthroplasty for restricted motion. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2005; 440 (440) 135-140
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Patil N, Lee K, Huddleston JI, Harris AH, Goodman SB. Aseptic versus septic revision total knee arthroplasty: patient satisfaction, outcome and quality of life improvement. Knee 2010; 17 (03) 200-203
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Heesterbeek PJ, Goosen JH, Schimmel JJ, Defoort KC, van Hellemondt GG, Wymenga AB. Moderate clinical improvement after revision arthroplasty of the severely stiff knee. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2016; 24 (10) 3235-3241
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Kim GK, Mortazavi SM, Parvizi J, Purtill JJ. Revision for stiffness following TKA: a predictable procedure?. Knee 2012; 19 (04) 332-334
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Haidukewych GJ, Jacofsky DJ, Pagnano MW, Trousdale RT. Functional results after revision of well-fixed components for stiffness after primary total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2005; 20 (02) 133-138
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Hartman CW, Ting NT, Moric M, Berger RA, Rosenberg AG, Della Valle CJ. Revision total knee arthroplasty for stiffness. J Arthroplasty 2010; 25 (6, suppl) 62-66
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Scuderi GR. The stiff total knee arthroplasty: causality and solution. J Arthroplasty 2005; 20 (04, Suppl 2): 23-26
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar