Affiliation:
1. School of Medicine University of Adelaide Adelaide South Australia Australia
2. Discipline of Medical Specialties University of Adelaide Adelaide South Australia Australia
3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery Lyell McEwin Hospital Elizabeth Vale South Australia Australia
4. College of Medicine & Public Health Flinders University Bedford Park South Australia Australia
Abstract
AbstractIntroductionClinical recognition of potential immune‐mediated allergic responses to implanted metal devices is increasing. For orthopaedic implants, while ‘pure’ compounds are used in specific circumstances, the majority of components are alloys – a combination of two or more distinct metals. Titanium is found commonly in many orthopaedic devices and is often championed as a ‘hypoallergenic’ option or inclusion. In the absence of a relevant previously published summary on the topic, this paper explores the current state‐of‐understanding of titanium allergy and proposes a patient management algorithm whereby such immune reactions are clinically‐suggested.MethodsA structured, systematic literature review was performed following PRISMA search principles to provide a contemporary summary‐of‐understanding in this area and to highlight clinical and knowledge deficiencies.ResultsThirty‐five topic‐related articles were identified, the majority reflecting small case series' or proof‐of‐concept studies. The general standard of scientific evidence available was poor. Justification for arthroplasty utilization of titanium as a ‘hypoallergenic’ option is largely extrapolated from non‐orthopaedic domains.ConclusionsBoth ionic and conjugated titanium particles released from implant surfaces have the potential to trigger innate immune responses and true allergy. There exists no simple, high‐sensitivity, screening test for titanium allergy. Conventional skin‐patch testing is unreliable due to poor dermal penetration. Given established lymphocyte and macrophage activation pathways for allergy responses, in vitro methods using both cell‐types show diagnostic promise. Surgical biopsy analysis from host‐implant interfaces remains the contemporary ‘gold‐standard’, however this represents an invasive, costly and highly‐specialized approach not readily available in most settings. Further research to establish reliable/accessible diagnostic methods are indicated.
Reference39 articles.
1. Exploring the incidence, implications, and relevance of metal allergy to Orthopaedic surgeons;Haddad SF;J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev.,2019
2. Hip Knee & Shoulder Arthroplasty:2022 Annual Report. Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR).2022. Available from URL:https://aoanjrr.sahmri.com/annual-reports-2022.
3. Frank Stinchfield Award: Identification of the At-risk Genotype for Development of Pseudotumors Around Metal-on-metal THAs
4. Identification of protective and ‘at risk’ HLA genotypes for the development of pseudotumours around metal‐on‐metal hip resurfacings;Sheridan GA;Bone Joint J,2023