Logout successfull!

CeramTec is committed to selecting and bringing to interested parties relevant articles on bioceramics related topics. The presented authors’ views and opinions are solely those of the authors of these publications. It is the focus and intent of CeraNews that CeramTec presents and comments on the authors’ views and opinions in a specific context. Such comments and editorials therefore solely express CeramTec’s views and opinions and not necessarily those of the quoted authors.


Issue # 12025

Metal Hypersensitivity: Pathophysiology and Diagnostic Tools

William M. Mihalko MD, PhD

JR Hyde Chair and Professor
Joint Graduate Program Chair in Biomedical Engineering
University of Tennessee Health Science Center- Campbell Clinic Orthopaedics
Memphis TN - USA

The disparity between total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and total hip arthroplasty (THA) patient-perceived outcomes is concerning, with TKA patients being satisfied (80-90%) at a much lower rate than their THA counterparts. (94-97%). In many cases the TKA patients have vague subjective complaints about residual pain and swelling, an achy joint, or an inability to kneel or squat.  Other more objective complaints may include a skin rash or constant or recurrent effusions in a joint. After infection has been ruled out along with implant suboptimal alignment, instability and other causes of residual pain, a metal hypersensitivity reaction must be considered.  

 

While TKA largely has seen decades of successful outcomes, as clinicians we should  focus on improving the number of patients who are satisfied after their TKA. Over the last two to three decades a focus on patient perceived outcomes has spotlighted that nearly 1 out of 5 patients may not be satisfied with their TKA result. About 15 years ago, dermatologists suggested that orthopaedic surgeons begin skin-patch testing (SPT) of patients before insertion of metal implants. It was then suggested that the patients with poorer outcomes could be suffering from a metal hypersensitivity reaction. Over the last two decades dermatologists have noted that nickel allergy in patients continues to climb when skin patch testing results are compared over time. In North America, such sensitivity has been reported in over 18% of individuals. But several authors in this publication point out the inherent issues with relying on SPT when applied to the presence of an implant in deep tissue. (In 2011, along with Drs. Josh Jacobs and Stuart Goodman, we published a rebuttal to the first dermatology suggestion of SPT for all orthopaedic patients in AAOS Now (ref)). Today, there is still not enough data to suggest that this recommendation should be followed. In this issue of CeraNews, experts point out that SPT reactions rely on langerhan cells which are dendritic-derived cells, whereas deep-tissue reactions are driven by lymphocytes, monocytes, local cytokines, and antibodies. There also have been multiple reports where a SPT has converted after an implant was placed in a patient and cases where a patient with a nickel-positive SPT experienced a good clinical outcome after undergoing a primary TKA that had trace nickel in its alloy.

 

Many orthopaedic surgeons still consider metal hypersensitivity as a cause for pain and dissatisfaction after a TKA as a diagnosis of exclusion.  When a metal hypersensitivity reaction is suspected, surgeons should rule out all other common causes (i.e. infection, arthrofibrosis, suboptimal implant alignment) before going down the metal hypersensitivity pathway. Complaints of recurrent or constant effusion, continued pain, and never having a period of satisfaction  also are common symptoms of a septic low-level infection, which is why it is imperative that infection first be ruled out. In the U.S., we are limited in the tests that we can order. While a lymphocyte transformation test (LTT) is available in most laboratories, not all insurance companies will cover its cost and not all labs have consistent protocols, which makes it difficult to rely on some results. Dermatologists can perform a SPT, but these typically cost well over $1,000. Melisa tests are not readily available and genetic testing has not become available or approved in the USA. (As you will read in this issue, the test has had promising results and is being used in other countries.)  

 

Genetic testing is the newest diagnostic test on the scene, based mostly on the ALVAL determinants from our Metal on Metal (MoM) hip arthroplasty bearing surface experiences. ALVAL is now looking like a scenario that occurs more often in TKA revisions than previously thought, with up to 30% of TKA revision surgeries showing evidence of ALVAL. Taking into account the number of revisions in the first five years after primary TKA and then the fact that 30% of patients may show signs of ALVAL, this may represent a more true numerator of hypersensitivity reactions after TKA surgery. While a number of publications have shown improvements of metal hypersensitivity-diagnosed patients after undergoing revision TKA surgery with an alternative implant material (ceramic coatings, ceramicized metals, BIOLOX delta or Alumina implants), there also have been reports of patients who have not seen improvements after exchanging their implants for ones made of a nickel/cobalt chrome-free biomaterial.

 

Dr. Summer, from the Munich Implant Allergy group, reports in this edition that they advocate a multifaceted approach to diagnosis of implant hypersensitivity. Using SPT along with LTT results as well as IL1alpha and beta stimulation testing and genetic testing is beneficial. Their genetic testing focuses on identifying single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) of IL1RN. They think that by identifying these variants they can help predict which implants may be best on an individual basis. Dr. Caicedo, in this edition, discusses the fact that genetic testing is in its early stages. He says utilizing human leukocyte antigen (HLA) haplotypes in patients who had ALVAL reactions might help some patients, but that specific clinical outcomes based on these results may be challenging.

 

We performed a single nucleotide polymorphism study on 44 patients with symptomatic pain and high cobalt and chrome levels after MoM THA and could not find a correlation with any SNPs that were identified. (Mihalko et al ISTA 2015) There was a weak association with an SNP for IL-15 in some patients with high cobalt and chrome circulating blood levels, but it was found to not be consistent. 

 

View the full editorial

Health Economics & Policy

A patient-centered allergy testing model

Dr. Burkhard Summer of Ludwig-Maximilans-Universität in Munich explains how the LMU’s multidisciplinary testing strategy integrates genetic testing, patch testing, lymphocyte transformation assay (LTT), and the IL-1α/IL-1β stimulation test to help surgeons and dentists to improve diagnostic precision and manage prospective implant allergies.

Implant Material

Metal hypersensitivity & implant failure

Dr. Marco Calcedo of Orthopedic Analysis/Rush University asserts that metal hypersensitivity is an underrecognized factor in implant failure, articulates the pathophysiological process of a metal-hypersensitivity reaction, and differentiates delayed-type hypersensitivity from conventional wear-related osteolysis.

Outcomes Research

Ni, Co, and Cr allergies in orthopedics

Dr. David Langton, Managing Director of ExplantLab, argues that aseptic lymphocyte-dominated vasculitis-associated lesions (ALVAL) is the true clinical manifestation of metal hypersensitivity and describes how ExplantLab’s Orthotype test diagnoses ALVAL pre- or post-op with a tissue sample from revision surgery.

Download the full issue

Download the CeraNews issue 1/2025 as a PDF including all three articles:
“Implant Allergy Testing Possibilities: Insights from the LMU Munich” by Dr. Burkhard Summer, Germany
“Understanding the Pathophysiology of Metal Hypersensitivity” by Marco Caicedo PhD, USA
“The Influence of Metal Exposure and Patient Genetics on the Development of Metal Hypersensitivity” by David Langton MRCS, UK
 

Issue 1/2025
4 MB, pdf

Find previous issues in our archive

Go to archive

References Editorial

1. Breuer R, Fiala R, Hartenbach F, Pollok F, Huber T, Strasser-Kirchweger B, Rath B, Trieb K. Long term follow-up of a completely metal free total knee endoprosthesis in comparison to an identical metal counterpart. Sci Rep. 2024;14(1):20958. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-71256-y

2. Chimento G, Daher J, Desai B, Velasco-Gonzalez C. Nickel allergy does not correlate with function after total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2025;33(2):646-653. doi: 10.1002/ksa.12448

3. Xie F, Sheng S, Ram V, Pandit H. Hypoallergenic knee implant usage and clinical outcomes: are they safe and effective? Arthroplast Today. 2024;28:101399. doi: 10.1016/j.artd.2024.101399

4. Soler F, Murcia A, Benlloch M, Mariscal G. The impact of allergies on patient-reported outcomes after total hip and knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2024;144(8):3755-3765. doi: 10.1007/s00402-024-05433-z

5. Siljander BR, Chandi SK, Cororaton AD, Debbi EM, McLawhorn AS, Sculco PK, Chalmers BP. A comparison of clinical outcomes after total knee arthroplasty in patients who have and do not have self-reported nickel allergy: matched and unmatched cohort comparisons. J Arthroplasty. 2024;39(10):2490-2495. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2024.05.029

6. Tidd JL, Gudapati LS, Simmons HL, Klika AK, Pasqualini I; Cleveland Clinic Arthroplasty Group; Piuzzi NS. Do patients with hypoallergenic total knee arthroplasty implants for metal allergy do worse? an analysis of health care utilizations and patient-reported outcome measures. J Arthroplasty. 2024;39(1):103-110. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2023.07.005

7. Siljander BR, Chandi SK, Debbi EM, McLawhorn AS, Sculco PK, Chalmers BP. A comparison of clinical outcomes after total knee arthroplasty in patients with preoperative nickel allergy receiving cobalt chromium or nickel-free implant. J Arthroplasty. 2023;38(7 Suppl 2):S194-S198. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2023.04.048

8. Bracey DN, Hegde V, Johnson R, Kleeman-Forsthuber L, Jennings J, Dennis D. Poor correlation among metal hypersensitivity testing modalities and inferior patient-reported outcomes after primary and revision total knee arthroplasties. Arthroplast Today. 2022;18:138-142. doi: 10.1016/j.artd.2022.09.016

9. Peacock CJH, Fu H, Asopa V, Clement ND, Kader D, Sochart DH. The effect of nickel hypersensitivity on the outcome of total kneearthroplasty and the value of skin patch testing: a systematic review. Arthroplasty. 2022 Sep 2;4(1):40. doi: 10.1186/s42836-022-00144-5.PMID: 36050799

10. Brozovich A, Clyburn T, Park K, Harper KD, Sullivan T, Incavo S, Taraballi F. Evaluation of local tissue peri-implant reaction in total knee arthroplasty failure cases. Ther Adv Musculoskelet Dis. 2022;14:1759720X221092263. doi: 10.1177/1759720X221092263

11. Matar HE, Porter PJ, Porter ML. Metal allergy in primary and revision total knee arthroplasty: a scoping review and evidence-based practical approach.Bone Jt Open. 2021;2(10):785-795. doi: 10.1302/2633-1462.210.BJO-2021-0098.R1

12. Pahlavan S, Hegde V, Bracey DN, Jennings JM, Dennis DA. Bone cement hypersensitivity in patients with a painful total knee arthroplasty: a case series of revision using custom cementless implants. Arthroplast Today. 2021;11:20-24. doi: 10.1016/j.artd.2021.06.001

13. Peña P, Ortega MA, Buján J, De la Torre B.  Influence of psychological distress in patients with hypoallergenic total knee arthroplasty. treatment algorithm for patients with metal allergy and knee osteoarthritis. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(11):5997. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18115997

14. Breuer R, Fiala R, Trieb K, Rath B. Prospective mid-term results of a completely metal-free ceramic total knee endoprosthesis: a concise follow-up of a previous report. J Arthroplasty. 2021;36(9):3161-3167. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2021.05.007

15. Malahias MA, Bauer TW, Manolopoulos PP, Sculco PK, Westrich GH. Allergy testing has no correlation with intraoperative histopathology from revision total knee arthroplasty for implant-related metal allergy. J Knee Surg. 2023;36(1):6-17. doi: 10.1055/s-0041-1729618

16. D'Ambrosi R, Nuara A, Mariani I, Di Feo F, Ursino N, Hirschmann M. Titanium niobium nitride mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty results in good to excellent clinical and radiographic outcomes in metal allergy patients with medial knee osteoarthritis. J Arthroplasty. 2021;36(1):140-147.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2020.07.028

17. Richards LJ, Streifel A, Rodrigues JM. Utility of patch testing and lymphocyte transformation testing in the evaluation of metal allergy in patients with orthopedic implants. Cureus. 2019;11(9):e5761. doi: 10.7759/cureus.5761

18. Sasseville D, Alfalah K, Savin E. Patch test results and outcome in patients with complications from total knee arthroplasty: a consecutive case series. J Knee Surg. 2021;34(3):233-241. doi: 10.1055/s-0039-1694984

19. Zondervan RL, Vaux JJ, Blackmer MJ, Brazier BG, Taunt CJ Jr. Improved outcomes in patients with positive metal sensitivity following revision total knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Surg Res. 2019;14(1):182. doi: 10.1186/s13018-019-1228-4

20. 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(3):257-264. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.18.00134.PMID: 30730485

21. Thomas P, Hisgen P, Kiefer H, Schmerwitz U, Ottersbach A, Albrecht D, Summer B, Schinkel C. Blood cytokine pattern and clinical outcome in knee arthroplasty patients: comparative analysis 5 years after standard versus "hypoallergenic" surface coated prosthesis implantation. Acta Orthop. 2018;89(6):646-651. doi: 10.1080/17453674.2018.1518802

22. Jauregui JJ, Desai SJ, Hodges V, Hariharan A, Newman JM, Adib F, Maheshwari AV. Outcomes of revision joint arthroplasty due to metal allergy and hypersensitivity: a systematic review. Surg Technol Int. 2018; 33:332-336. PMID: 29985516

23. Akil S, Newman JM, Shah NV, Ahmed N, Deshmukh AJ, Maheshwari AV. Metal hypersensitivity in total hip and knee arthroplasty: current concepts. J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2018;9(1):3-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jcot.2017.10.003

24. Mitchelson AJ, Wilson CJ, Mihalko WM, Grupp TM, Manning BT, Dennis DA, Goodman SB, Tzeng TH, Vasdev S, Saleh KJ.  Biomaterial hypersensitivity: is it real? Supportive evidence and approach considerations for metal allergic patients following total knee arthroplasty. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:137287. doi: 10.1155/2015/137287

25. Lachiewicz PF, Watters TS, Jacobs JJ. Metal hypersensitivity and total knee arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2016;24(2):106–112. doi: 10.5435/JAAOS-D-14-00290

26. DeKoven JG, Warshaw EM, Reeder MJ, et al. North American Contact Dermatitis Group Patch Test Results: 2019-2020. Dermatitis. 2023;34(2) 90-104. doi: 10.1089/derm.2022.29017.jdk 

27. Silverberg JI, Patel N, Warshaw EM, et al. Patch testing with nickel cobalt and chromium in patients with suspected allergic contact dermatitis. Dermatitis. 2024;35(2) 152-159. doi:10.1089/derm.2023.0139.

28. 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(8):1717-21. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2016.01.024.

29. Mihalko WM, Goodman SB, Amini M, et al. Metal sensitivity testing and associated total joint outcomes. 2013 American Academy of Oorthopaedic Surgeons annual meeting. Scientific exhibit presentation. Chicago, IL.