Metal hypersensitivity is a complex and often debated topic in orthopedics, especially concerning its impact on implant failure. Despite extensive research spanning over four decades, delayed-type hypersensitivity (DTH) responses to orthopedic implant degradation products remain challenging to predict and manage.
It is well established that DTH responses to implant metals are associated with specific pro-inflammatory cytokine activity, histological markers of cell migration, and clinical symptoms, making the diagnosis of metal hypersensitivity relevant in the context of implant performance and patient outcomes.1-4 Preoperative metal sensitivity testing has shown to improve outcomes when considered in surgical planning of implant revision surgeries, though the inconsistent link between pre-existing metal sensitivity and implant failure has sometimes limited its clinical application.5-7 Notably, over 10% of orthopedic patients exhibit metal sensitivity pre-operatively, underscoring its importance in patient management.
The pathophysiology of metal hypersensitivity primarily involves a cell-mediated immune reaction distinct from particle-induced osteolysis, also known as “particle disease.”
Particle disease is a chronic inflammatory response driven by macrophage interaction with implant debris over many years. In contrast, DTH responses, typically triggered by lymphocytes in response to metal haptens, are associated with worsening symptoms and earlier implant failure. These adaptive immune reactions are specific; lymphocytes recognize and respond to metal ions released from the implant, setting DTH responses apart from the general innate inflammatory responses observed in particle disease. 8-10
The immunological mechanisms behind metal sensitivity are initiated by the generation of metal ions due to implant wear and corrosion degradation products. Released metal ions interact with serum proteins, forming hapten-protein complexes that alter protein structure and activate the immune system. These metal-altered proteins are then processed by antigen-presenting cells (APCs), which present them to T-cells, prompting activation, proliferation and thus a hypersensitivity reaction.1;4 This reaction, also known as a Type IV T-cell-mediated response, leads to symptoms such as aseptic pain and swelling around the implant and, in some instances, dermal manifestations like hives or redness, although such skin reactions are less common.2;11;12
Metal hypersensitivity prevalence varies across populations, with about 10-15% of the general population demonstrating sensitivity, predominantly to nickel followed by chromium and cobalt. Among patients with metal implants, sensitivity is even more prevalent: approximately 25% of those with functioning implants and up to 60% of patients with painful or failing implants show sensitivity to metal ions (4). The prevalence of hypersensitivity reaches as high as 76% in some cases of failing metal-on-metal implants, indicating a strong mechanistic relationship between metal exposure and the immune response.13;14
A metal hypersensitivity response is primarily mediated by Th1 T-helper lymphocytes, which produce pro-inflammatory cytokines, such as interferon-gamma (IFN-γ), tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α), RANK ligand and interleukins (IL-2, Lt-α) upon activation.3;15;16 Other studies have found an involvement of IL-17 producing Th17 lymphocytes in metal contact dermatitis.17 These cytokines recruit and activate other immune cells like macrophages, monocytes, neutrophils and osteoclasts, leading to sustained inflammation. This ongoing immune activation can establish a self-perpetuating cycle of cytokine release and immune cell recruitment, causing long-term tissue damage and bone resorption similar to autoimmune conditions in which the immune response is chronically active and dysregulated.8;18-20
While hypersensitivity to metal debris is relatively uncommon, contributing to only 1-3% of aseptic implant failures among traditional metal-on-polymer type total joint replacement designs2;4;21, the immune response is influenced by the specific characteristics of the implant debris (i.e. particles and soluble ions) that come off the implant surface. This suggests that implant material design and type play a significant role in managing hypersensitivity risk. Reducing metal debris can decrease hypersensitivity incidence, underscoring the importance of selecting appropriate materials for implant designs.2;4;21
Understanding the pathophysiology of metal hypersensitivity and its role in joint replacement is crucial for optimizing patient outcomes and minimizing implant failure. Advances in preoperative testing, surgical planning, and implant material design hold promise for better management of this complex immune response, ultimately enhancing the longevity and performance of joint replacements.
Exploring the Currently Available Testing Methods for Metal Allergies
Current available diagnostic methods for metal allergy in humans primarily include dermal (patch) testing and in vitro lymphocyte transformation testing (LTT). Both assess immune response to metals, although each has distinct mechanisms and limitations for evaluating sensitivity in orthopedic implant contexts.22
Dermal (Patch) Testing: Patch testing involves applying metal-containing agents to the skin to identify contact sensitivity after 48-96 hours. However, its applicability to deep tissue implant-related metal sensitivity is debated. This test engages unique skin antigen-presenting cells (APCs), particularly Langerhans cells, which differ from peri-implant APCs such as macrophages (1;18-20). Dermal APCs contain Birbeck granules—specialized organelles for antigen processing—that are not present in peri-implant macrophages.23 Also, T regulatory cells (Tregs) make up about 20% of CD4⁺ T cells in skin, while in peripheral blood they constitute around 5–10%. This higher proportion in the skin highlights Tregs' crucial role in controlling inflammation and maintaining immune balance, suggesting that the immune response observed in the skin may not replicate that in a less regulated peri-implant environment.24
Several issues complicate patch testing’s reliability for implant-related metal sensitivity. First, the subjective, operator-specific nature of grading skin reactions (i.e. 0 to +3) leads to inconsistent standards, with interpretations varying among clinicians.25 Additionally, skin-specific tolerance may suppress reactivity, potentially underestimating implant-related sensitivity.23 Variability in host immune responses, influenced by environmental factors such as medications can also impact test accuracy.26 Furthermore, patch testing carries a risk of sensitization in a previously non-sensitive individual.27 Testing environments are also non-standardized and inconsistent, with patches applied on skin for 48-96 hours under variable uncontrolled cleanliness conditions. Lastly, commercially available patch tests lack standardized concentrations for important orthopedic metal alloys.
Lymphocyte Transformation Testing (LTT): LTT, a blood-based test, offers a more direct approach to assessing metal hypersensitivity by measuring lymphocyte proliferation in response to specific metals. This method involves isolating blood lymphocytes, exposing them to metal challenge agents in vitro, and using radioactive thymidine to quantify lymphocyte proliferation upon activation. The test produces a proliferation index that indicates immune reactivity to metal, allowing for a precise assessment of hypersensitivity.28;29
LTT has significant advantages over patch testing for detecting implant metal-related sensitivity. Its higher sensitivity reduces false negatives, allowing for improved detection of immune responses to metal implants.22;28;29 The quantitative data from LTT also enables dose-dependent analysis, as different concentrations can be tested to identify individuals who may respond to lower or higher levels of metal exposure.1 Furthermore, the mixed mononuclear cells used in LTT—including T-cells and B-cells from the patient’s blood—offer a closer mimicry to in vivo immune responses than patch testing, enhancing the test’s relevance for peri-implant environments.30 By testing across various metal concentrations, LTT enables clinicians to capture individual variability in immune response, which is critical for precise sensitivity assessments.11
The objective quantitative nature of LTT eliminates operator dependency, producing consistency in test interpretations and reducing subjectivity.2 Further, recent well-established studies suggest that LTT may have greater clinical relevance than patch testing for detecting implant-related metal sensitivity.5;22;33-35 This is evidenced by specific case and group studies where metal sensitivity diagnosis by LTT influenced the surgeon’s implant choice resulting in a positive outcome for their patients after revision surgery. 5;31-33
LTT also offers a significant advantage over genetic predisposition testing by detecting a downstream, phenotypic immune response. This functional lymphocyte activation accounts for both genetic and epigenetic patient-specific factors by measuring actual immune reactivity to metal haptens after all regulatory mechanisms at the gene, protein, and cellular levels have occurred.3;28 As a result, the LTT provides a more comprehensive assessment of the immune system's functional response, capturing end-point phenotypic immune activation through cell surface activation markers (e.g., costimulatory molecules), cytokine/chemokine production, and resulting lymphocyte proliferation.15;30;36 This approach goes beyond detecting specific alleles associated with a potential predisposition for metal sensitivity, which may not necessarily manifest as an actual immune response to metals given the wide array of genes and epigenetic factors associated with immunity.37
Although LTT’s high sensitivity may increase the risk of false positives, avoiding reactive metals is generally safer, as alternative materials are often available. In contrast, missing a metal sensitivity diagnosis with less sensitive methods could result in early implant failure and necessitate revision surgery. Consequently, LTT serves as the most reliable and effective diagnostic tool for assessing metal sensitivity, guiding implant selection, and managing patient care.
MELISA Test: The MELISA (Memory Lymphocyte Immuno-stimulation Assay) test is a variation of the LTT designed to detect metal hypersensitivity by similarly measuring lymphocyte proliferative reactivity in a modified population of peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs).38 The test’s deviation from using a standard PBMC population, combined with its reliance on microscopy for confirming lymphocyte reactivity, introduces technician dependent interpretative variability, thus questions about the utility of depleting antigen presenting cell in vitro may compromise clinical utility for implant-related metal hypersensitivity.
Genetic Testing: Although still in its early stages, the genetic sequencing of specific human leukocyte antigen (HLA) haplotypes has been proposed as a method for assessing a patient’s risk of developing Adverse Local Tissue Reaction (ALTR) and aseptic lymphocyte-dominated vasculitis-associated lesions (ALVAL), as observed in patients with metal-on-metal cobalt-chrome (CoCr) implants.39;40 Certain HLA class II alleles have been reported in a limited metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty series to be associated with susceptibility to ALVAL, particularly when HLA genotypes are considered alongside factors such as age, gender, and metal exposure levels in recipients of metal-on-metal hip replacements.39 However, it is important to recognize that predicting specific clinical outcomes based on genetic markers alone remains challenging, especially given the adaptability of immune responses and allele-disease associations, which vary greatly amongst ethnic populations.37;41 Conditions like DTH typically involve complex exposure interactions among multiple genetic and epigenetic factors. While specific HLA alleles may be associated with an increased propensity for T cell antigen recognition, genetic predisposition rarely operates in isolation and particularly in the case of DTH immune responses, e.g. vaccine efficacy.37;41 Epigenetic influences, such as DNA methylation, histone modification, non-coding RNA interactions, and environmental factors (i.e. overall immune status, diet, microbiome composition, medications, physical activity, etc.) play significant roles in modulating immune function in ways that single-gene testing cannot fully capture.37;42;43 Consequently, comprehensive multi-gene analyses and consideration of epigenetic and patient-specific environmental factors are essential for accurate risk prediction of phenotypic immune responses.
Addressing the Relevance of Metal Allergy Testing in Diagnosis and Management of Patients Undergoing Joint Replacement
Metal allergy testing plays a critical role in diagnosing and managing patients undergoing joint replacement, particularly given the evidence linking metal hypersensitivity to implant performance. Retrospective studies have shown that patients with elevated metal exposure and functioning implants exhibit a 25% rate of metal sensitivity, approximately twice that of the general population. This sensitivity rate further escalates to 60% among patients with painful or failing implants, demonstrating a strong association between metal hypersensitivity and adverse implant outcomes.1;2;4 Such data underscore the importance of metal sensitivity testing as a diagnostic tool for identifying patients at higher risk of implant-related complications.
Certain implants, especially those with metal-on-metal surfaces, are more likely to release metal particles and ions, increasing the likelihood of hypersensitivity responses. Metal-on-metal hip prostheses are associated with higher rates of metal sensitivity, with cases showing as high as 76% to 100% positive sensitivity results among symptomatic patients.13;14 Even asymptomatic patients can develop metal sensitivity over time; for instance, one study found sensitivity rates increased from 5% pre-operation to 56% within 1-4 years post-operation in patients with metal-on-metal implants.13;44 Elevated circulating metal ion levels have also been correlated with increased sensitivity and specific pathologies, such as pseudotumors, in metal-on-metal implant recipients. Patients with pseudotumors exhibited significantly higher metal sensitivity (80% versus 45%) and serum ion levels, suggesting that metal sensitivity may impact implant longevity and contribute to complications.45 Moreover, self-reported pain levels often correlate with higher lymphocyte transformation test (LTT) responses, indicating that lymphocyte reactivity to implant degradation products may be linked to patient discomfort and reduced implant performance.11
Given these findings, metal sensitivity testing is clinically relevant, particularly for two primary patient groups:
While evidence remains largely indirect, metal sensitivity testing provides a direct measure of immune cell reactivity to implant metals, representing a significant immune response rather than a mere correlational biomarker. Immune reactivity to metal is well-documented as being associated with implant performance, and a reproducible and quantifiable immune response to metal indicates a clinically significant finding that may impact treatment and management decisions.
Evidence from numerous studies supports the clinical value of metal sensitivity testing for individuals receiving total joint implants, highlighting its potential to improve implant outcomes by guiding material selection based on a patient's immune reactivity. Although the exact incidence of metal sensitivity leading to implant failure is unknown, around 1% to 3% of joint replacement recipients are highly susceptible to excessive immune reactions triggered by metal ions released from implants. Among metal sensitivity tests, the Lymphocyte Transformation Test (LTT) may offer greater sensitivity than patch testing, though larger clinical studies are needed to validate its specificity and overall efficacy.1;2;13;45 Because metal sensitivity testing involves complex immunological assessments, facilities conducting these tests should maintain transparent testing protocols and be certified under strict quality and compliance protocols for immunological testing. For example, this includes Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) certification in the United States. Given that fewer than 1% of the million-plus annual joint replacement recipients in the U.S. tested for metal sensitivity pre-operatively, it is likely that implant-related metal sensitivity has been largely underreported.4;21
Larger longitudinal studies are needed to build consensus on the clinical utility of pre- or post-operative testing by comparing outcomes of patients whose treatment plans are adjusted based on sensitivity findings. As the scientific community increasingly recognizes the impact of metal sensitivity, surgeons are factoring this into implant selection to reduce the likelihood of immune-related complications. Optimizing implant materials to match patients’ immune profiles could not only improve outcomes for millions of people projected to require joint replacements46 but also reduce mortality associated with revision surgeries in high-risk populations over age 75, where mortality can exceed 10%.
1. Caicedo MS, Solver E, Coleman L, Jacobs JJ, Hallab NJ. Females with Unexplained Joint Pain Following Total Joint Arthroplasty Exhibit a Higher Rate and Severity of Hypersensitivity to Implant Metals Compared with Males: Implications of Sex-Based Bioreactivity Differences. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2017 Apr 19;99(8):621-8.
2. Thomas P, Braathen LR, Dorig M, Aubock J, Nestle F, Werfel T, et al. Increased metal allergy in patients with failed metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty and peri-implant T-lymphocytic inflammation. Allergy 2009 Aug;64(8):1157-65.
3. Hallab NJ, Anderson S, Stafford T, Glant T, Jacobs JJ. Lymphocyte responses in patients with total hip arthroplasty. J Orthop Res 2005 Mar;23(2):384-91.
4. Hallab N, Merritt K, Jacobs JJ. Metal sensitivity in patients with orthopaedic implants. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2001 Mar;83(3):428-36.
5. 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 Jun 17;14(1):182.
6. Whiteside LA. Clinical Results of Revision TKA in Patients With Presumed Metal and Cement Allergy. J Arthroplasty 2022 Jun;37(6S):S250-S257.
7. Tidd JL, Gudapati LS, Simmons HL, Klika AK, Pasqualini I, 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 Jan;39(1):103-10.
8. Caicedo MS, Desai R, McAllister K, Reddy A, Jacobs JJ, Hallab NJ. Soluble and particulate Co-Cr-Mo alloy implant metals activate the inflammasome danger signaling pathway in human macrophages: a novel mechanism for implant debris reactivity. J Orthop Res 2009 Jul;27(7):847-54.
9. Goodman SB, Gibon E, Yao Z. The basic science of periprosthetic osteolysis. Instr Course Lect 2013;62:201-6.
10. Goodman SB, Pajarinen J, Yao Z, Lin T. Inflammation and Bone Repair: From Particle Disease to Tissue Regeneration. Front Bioeng Biotechnol 2019;7:230.
11. 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(1):37-44.
12. Lionberger DR, Samorajski J, Wilson CD, Rivera A. What role does metal allergy sensitization play in total knee arthroplasty revision? J Exp Orthop 2018 Aug 14;5(1):30.
13. Hallab NJ, Caicedo M, McAllister K, Skipor A, Amstutz H, Jacobs JJ. Asymptomatic prospective and retrospective cohorts with metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty indicate acquired lymphocyte reactivity varies with metal ion levels on a group basis. J Orthop Res 2013 Feb;31(2):173-82.
14. Korovessis P, Petsinis G, Repanti M, Repantis T. Metallosis after contemporary metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty. Five to nine-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006 Jun;88(6):1183-91.
15. 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 Feb 13;3:6.
16. Samelko L, Caicedo MS, Jacobs J, Hallab NJ. Transition from metal-DTH resistance to susceptibility is facilitated by NLRP3 inflammasome signaling induced Th17 reactivity: Implications for orthopedic implants. PLoS One 2019;14(1):e0210336.
17. Peiser M. Role of Th17 cells in skin inflammation of allergic contact dermatitis. Clin Dev Immunol 2013;2013:261037.
18. Goodman SB, Gibon E, Pajarinen J, Lin TH, Keeney M, Ren PG, et al. Novel biological strategies for treatment of wear particle-induced periprosthetic osteolysis of orthopaedic implants for joint replacement. J R Soc Interface 2014 Apr 6;11(93):20130962.
19. Campbell P, Park SH, Ebramzadeh E. Semi-quantitative histology confirms that the macrophage is the predominant cell type in metal-on-metal hip tissues. J Orthop Res 2022 Feb;40(2):387-95.
20. Cobelli N, Scharf B, Crisi GM, Hardin J, Santambrogio L. Mediators of the inflammatory response to joint replacement devices. Nat Rev Rheumatol 2011 Sep 6;7(10):600-8.
21. Willert HG, Buchhorn GH, Fayyazi A, Flury R, Windler M, Koster G, 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 Jan;87(1):28-36.
22. Stander S, Oppel E, Thomas P, Summer B. Evaluation of lymphocyte transformation tests as compared with patch tests in nickel allergy diagnosis. Contact Dermatitis 2017 Apr;76(4):228-34.
23. Romani N, Clausen BE, Stoitzner P. Langerhans cells and more: langerin-expressing dendritic cell subsets in the skin. Immunol Rev 2010 Mar;234(1):120-41.
24. Cheru N, Hafler DA, Sumida TS. Regulatory T cells in peripheral tissue tolerance and diseases. Front Immunol 2023;14:1154575.
25. Arora P, Brumley C, Hylwa S. Clinical relevance of doubtful reactions in patch testing: A single-centre retrospective study. Contact Dermatitis 2024 Jun;90(6):607-12.
26. Gudjonsson JE, Kabashima K, Eyerich K. Mechanisms of skin autoimmunity: Cellular and soluble immune components of the skin. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2020 Jul;146(1):8-16.
27. Agrup G. Sensitization induced by patch testing. Br J Dermatol 1968 Oct;80(10):631-4.
28. Hallab NJ. Lymphocyte transformation testing for quantifying metal-implant-related hypersensitivity responses. Dermatitis 2004 Jun;15(2):82-90.
29. Summer B, Stander S, Kapp F, Thomas P. [Role of the lymphocyte transformation test in the evaluation of metal sensitization]. Hautarzt 2016 May;67(5):380-4.
30. Hallab NJ, Caicedo M, Epstein R, McAllister K, Jacobs JJ. In vitro reactivity to implant metals demonstrates a person-dependent association with both T-cell and B-cell activation. J Biomed Mater Res A 2010 Feb;92(2):667-82.
31. Lieberman EG, Barrack RL, Schmalzried TP. Suspected Metal Allergy and Femoral Loosening After Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Diagnostic Dilemma. Arthroplast Today 2021 Feb;7:114-9.
32. Whiteside LA. Clinical Results of Revision TKA in Patients With Presumed Metal and Cement Allergy. J Arthroplasty 2022 Jun;37(6S):S250-S257.
33. Lionberger DR, Samorajski J, Wilson CD, Rivera A. What role does metal allergy sensitization play in total knee arthroplasty revision? J Exp Orthop 2018 Aug 14;5(1):30.
34. Cederbrant K, Hultman P, Marcusson JA, Tibbling L. In vitro lymphocyte proliferation as compared to patch test using gold, palladium and nickel. Int Arch Allergy Immunol 1997 Mar;112(3):212-7.
35. Primeau MN, Adkinson NF, Jr. Recent advances in the diagnosis of drug allergy. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol 2001 Aug;1(4):337-41.
36. Caicedo MS, Pennekamp PH, McAllister K, Jacobs JJ, Hallab NJ. Soluble ions more than particulate cobalt-alloy implant debris induce monocyte costimulatory molecule expression and release of proinflammatory cytokines critical to metal-induced lymphocyte reactivity. J Biomed Mater Res A 2010 Jun 15;93(4):1312-21.
37. Brodin P, Jojic V, Gao T, Bhattacharya S, Angel CJ, Furman D, et al. Variation in the human immune system is largely driven by non-heritable influences. Cell 2015 Jan 15;160(1-2):37-47.
38. Valentine-Thon E, Muller K, Guzzi G, Kreisel S, Ohnsorge P, Sandkamp M. LTT-MELISA is clinically relevant for detecting and monitoring metal sensitivity. Neuro Endocrinol Lett 2006 Dec;27 Suppl 1:17-24.
39. Langton DJ, Bhalekar RM, Joyce TJ, Rushton SP, Wainwright BJ, Nargol ME, et al. The influence of HLA genotype on the development of metal hypersensitivity following joint replacement. Commun Med (Lond) 2022;2:73.
40. Kilb BKJ, Kurmis AP, Parry M, Sherwood K, Keown P, Masri BA, et al. Frank Stinchfield Award: Identification of the At-risk Genotype for Development of Pseudotumors Around Metal-on-metal THAs. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2018 Feb;476(2):230-41.
41. Li Y, Deshpande P, Hertzman RJ, Palubinsky AM, Gibson A, Phillips EJ. Genomic Risk Factors Driving Immune-Mediated Delayed Drug Hypersensitivity Reactions. Front Genet 2021;12:641905.
42. Kondilis-Mangum HD, Wade PA. Epigenetics and the adaptive immune response. Mol Aspects Med 2013 Jul;34(4):813-25.
43. Chen Q, Li H, Liu Y, Zhao M. Epigenetic Regulation of Immune and Inflammatory Responses in Rheumatoid Arthritis. Front Immunol 2022;13:881191.
44. Kwon YM, Glyn-Jones S, Simpson DJ, Kamali A, McLardy-Smith P, Gill HS, et al. Analysis of wear of retrieved metal-on-metal hip resurfacing implants revised due to pseudotumours. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2010 Mar;92(3):356-61.
45. Kwon YM, Thomas P, Summer B, Pandit H, Taylor A, Beard D, et al. Lymphocyte proliferation responses in patients with pseudotumors following metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty. J Orthop Res 2010 Apr;28(4):444-50.
46. Kurtz SM, Ong KL, Schmier J, Mowat F, Saleh K, Dybvik E, et al. Future clinical and economic impact of revision total hip and knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007 Oct;89 Suppl 3:144-51.