Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Anesthesiology Cardiology Dermatology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology and Hepatology General Medicine Geriatrics Hematology Infectious Diseases Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Obstetrics and Gynecology Oncology Ophthalmology Pediatrics Psychiatry Radiology Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery Urology
Congress Coverage
ASH 2024 Annual Meeting 2024 ESMO Congress 2024 ERS Congress 2024 EASD Congress 2024 ESC Congress 2024 EAN Congress 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting 2024 ACC Congress
Clinical Collections
Women’s Health Knowledge Hub Advances in Alzheimer’s

Navigating neuroimaging in Alzheimer disease care

PET imaging is playing an increasingly critical role in managing AD, but how can you effectively integrate it into clinical practice? Our expert-led program will empower you with practical strategies and real-world case studies.

This content is intended for healthcare professionals outside of the UK.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Current Dermatology Reports
Published in:

31-01-2023 | REVIEW

Hypersensitivity to Implanted Metal Devices

Authors: Ben L. Schwartz, Deeti J. Pithadia, Jennifer K. Chen

Published in: Current Dermatology Reports | Issue 1/2023

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Metal implants play a significant role in modern medicine. This review summarizes the current literature regarding metal implant hypersensitivity reactions and their workup and management.

Recent Findings

Hypersensitivity reactions have been reported to various metal implants, including orthopedic, cardiovascular, dental, gynecologic, neurologic, and oculoplastic devices, and the Nuss procedure. We have consolidated recent expert consensus recommendations to create a proposed management algorithm. Although there is a paucity of data, expert consensus suggests that pre-implant patch testing (PT) may be considered in patients with a history of suspected metal allergy, and all patients prior to the Nuss procedure. Post-implant PT should be considered after all other plausible diagnoses have been ruled out.

Summary

There is limited evidence establishing causality between metal allergy and implant-related complications; although PT results may be helpful in guiding discussion and counseling, PT cannot reliably predict any specific outcome. A thorough risk-benefit analysis should be undertaken prior to making any management decisions. There is a need for further prospective controlled studies.
Literature
1.
2.
3.
• DeKoven JG, Silverberg JI, Warshaw EM, Atwater AR, Reeder MJ, Sasseville D, et al. North American contact dermatitis group Patch Test Results: 2017–2018. Dermatitis. 2021;32:111–23. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1097/​der.​0000000000000729​. A good resource article outlining the prevalence in North America of contact allergy to various allergens.
4.
5.
6.
•• Muris J, Kleverlaan CJ. Hypersensitivity to Dental Alloys. In: Chen JK, Thyssen JP, editors. Metal allergy from dermatitis to implant and device failure. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2018. A detailed review of the different types of dental appliances, their metallic composition, the role of corrosion and the oral microenvironment in inducing metal hypersensitivity, and the range of clinical symptoms associated with hypersensitivity to dental implants.
7.
•• Ko LN, Schalock PC. Hypersensitivity to hip and knee implants. In: Chen JK, Thyssen JP, editors. Metal allergy from dermatitis to implant and device failure. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2018. A comprehensive review of the composition of hip and knee implants, the range of clinical manifestations of metal hypersensitivity to them, the pathophysiology underlying metal hypersensitivity, and an overview of contemporary literature on the prevention and management of metal hypersensitivity to hip and knee implants.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Halpin DS. An unusual reaction in muscle in association with a Vitallium Plate: a report of possible metal hypersensitivity. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1975;57:451–3.CrossRefPubMed
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
•• Svedman C, Bruze M. Hypersensitivity to cardiovascular implants: stents. In: Chen JK, Thyssen JP, editors. Metal allergy from dermatitis to implant and device failure. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2018. An in-depth review of the history of stent development and evolution with detailed examination of the evidence for hypersensitivity reactions, and a framework for evaluation and diagnosis.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
•• Honari G, Raissi F. Hypersensitivity to cardiovascular implants: cardiac implantable electronic devices and septal occluders. In: Chen JK, Thyssen JP, editors. Metal allergy from dermatitis to implant and device failure. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2018. Excellent review of hypersensitivity to cardiac implantable electronic devices and septal occluders, the range of symptoms associated with hypersensitivity reactions, and evidence-based suggestions for diagnosis and management.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
• Gold M, Nath N, Green C, Atwater AR. Frequency of contact allergy to implanted cardiac devices. JAMA Dermatol. 2019;155:749. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1001/​jamadermatol.​2019.​0036. An insightful retrospective study examining 11 patients who underwent post-implantation patch testing for potential contact allergy, mostly in the setting of peri-implant erythema; more than half of the patients had pertinent positive results, including to metals, suggesting that evaluating metal contact allergy in certain settings, such as peri-implant erythema or concern for infection, may be beneficial.
51.
52.
53.
54.
Jain M, Singh S, Cadeiras M. A case of nitinol allergy causing pericardial tamponade. J Invasive Cardiol. 2013;25:180–2.
55.
56.
•• Heitmiller K, Baruch D, Gaspari AA. Hypersensitivity to other implants: gynecological, neurovascular, oculoplastic, nuss bars. In: Chen JK, Thyssen JP, editors. Metal allergy from dermatitis to implant and device failure. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2018. A comprehensive overview of gynecological, neurovascular, oculoplastic, and Nuss bar implants that describes implant composition, symptomatology, the role of preoperative patch testing, and management strategies based on the available evidence.
57.
• Galazka P, Leis K, Kroczek K, Baska A, Kazik J, Czajkowski R. Metal allergy after the Nuss procedure for pectus excavatum: a review. Adv Dermatol Allergol. 2020;37:848–52. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5114/​ada.​2020.​102094. A review of metal hypersensitivity following Nuss bar implantation, covering implant composition, clinical manifestations of metal allergy, and the prevalence of hypersensitivity reactions to Nuss bars.
58.
59.
• Tam I, Yu JD, Ko LN, Schalock PC. Clinical factors before or after device implantation in predicting metal hypersensitivity reactions: a retrospective study. Contact Derm. 2020:83:398–407. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​cod.​13637. A recent retrospective study examining a series of 127 patients who underwent pre-implantation and post-implantation patch testing to assess the value of patch testing; pre-implant patch testing for those with self-reported history of metal allergy was determined to be highly sensitive for diagnosing metal contact allergy, while post-implant patch testing was helpful upon the exclusion of other diagnoses.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
Barranco VP. Eczematous dermatitis caused by internal exposure to copper. Arch Dermatol. 1972;106:386–7.CrossRefPubMed
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
• Brown A, Mandelberg NJ, Munoz-Mendoza D, Palys V, Schalock PC, Mogilner A, et al. Allergy considerations in implanted neuromodulation devices. Neuromodulation Technol Neural Interface. 2021;24:1307–16. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​ner.​13332. A recent case series highlighting the range of hypersensitivity symptoms to implanted neuromodulation devices and proposing a framework for clinical management.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
•• Thomas P, Summer B. Diagnostic Work-Up of Patients with Metal Implant Failure. In: Chen JK, Thyssen JP, editors. Metal allergy from dermatitis to implant and device failure. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2018. A review of the evaluation of metal hypersensitivity reactions to implants in the pre-implant and post-implant settings, and an algorithm for evaluating patients with implant failure and suspected metal allergy.
90.
91.
•• 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. 2016:27:241–7. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1097/​DER0000000000000​210. Expert consensus recommendations from the American Contact Dermatitis Society regarding the appropriate workup and management of patients with suspected metal implant hypersensitivity, in the pre- and post-operative settings.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.
Carlsson A, Moller H. Implantation of orthopaedic devices in patients with metal allergy. Acta Derm Venereol. 1989;69:62–6.PubMed
99.
100.
101.
102.
103.
104.
105.
106.
107.
Grewal SS, Lopez Del Valle EM, Gupta V, Ramon N, Freeman WD, Tawk RG. Neurological changes with abnormal brain reactivity following coiling of cerebral aneurysm. Possible Reactivity to Endovascular Devices and Material? J Vasc Interv Neurol. 2015;8:28–36.PubMedPubMedCentral
108.
109.
110.
111.
112.
Metadata
Title
Hypersensitivity to Implanted Metal Devices
Authors
Ben L. Schwartz
Deeti J. Pithadia
Jennifer K. Chen
Publication date
31-01-2023
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Current Dermatology Reports / Issue 1/2023
Electronic ISSN: 2162-4933
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13671-023-00381-0

Other articles of this Issue 1/2023