• Something wrong with this record ?

A literature review and expert consensus statement on diagnostics in suspected metal implant allergy

P. Thomas, P. Arenberger, R. Bader, AJ. Bircher, M. Bruze, N. de Graaf, D. Hartmann, JD. Johansen, A. Jowitz-Heinke, V. Krenn, M. Kurek, A. Odgaard, T. Rustemeyer, B. Summer, JP. Thyssen

. 2024 ; 38 (8) : 1471-1477. [pub] 20240412

Language English Country England, Great Britain

Document type Journal Article, Review, Consensus Development Conference

Persistent link   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc24019601

Grant support
2015-029 European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology

BACKGROUND: Although rare, allergic reactions to metal implants represent a diagnostic challenge in view of missing guidelines. OBJECTIVES: To develop an European expert consensus on characteristics of metal allergy reactions and the utility of various diagnostic tools in suspected metal implant allergy. METHODS: A nominal group technique (NGT) was applied to develop consensus statements. Initially an online literature database was created on a secure server to enable a comprehensive information. Twenty-three statements were formulated on potential aspects of metal implant allergy with a focus on diagnostics and grouped into five domains. For the consensus development, the panel of 12 experts initially did refine and reformulate those statements that were ambiguous or had unclear wording. By face-to-face (9/12) or virtual participation (3/12), an anonymous online voting was performed. RESULTS: Consensus (≥80% of agreement) was reached in 20/23 statements. The panel agreed that implant allergy despite being rare should be considered in case of persistent unexplained symptoms. It was, however, recommended to allow adequate time for resolution of symptoms associated with healing and integration of an implant. Obtaining questionnaire-aided standardized medical history and standardized scoring of patient outcomes was also considered an important step by all experts There was broad consensus regarding the utility/performance of patch testing with additional late reading. It was recognized that the lymphocyte transformation test (LTT) has to many limitations to be generally recommended. Prior to orthopaedic implant, allergy screening of patients without a history of potential allergy to implant components was not recommended. CONCLUSIONS: Using an expert consensus process, statements concerning allergy diagnostics in suspected metal implant allergy were created. Areas of nonconsensus were identified, stressing uncertainty among the experts around topics such as preoperative testing in assumed allergy, histological correlate of periimplant allergy and in vitro testing, which underscores the need for further research.

References provided by Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc24019601
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20241024110614.0
007      
ta
008      
241015s2024 enk f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1111/jdv.20026 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)38606660
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a enk
100    1_
$a Thomas, P $u Department of Dermatology and Allergology, University Hospital, Munich, Germany
245    12
$a A literature review and expert consensus statement on diagnostics in suspected metal implant allergy / $c P. Thomas, P. Arenberger, R. Bader, AJ. Bircher, M. Bruze, N. de Graaf, D. Hartmann, JD. Johansen, A. Jowitz-Heinke, V. Krenn, M. Kurek, A. Odgaard, T. Rustemeyer, B. Summer, JP. Thyssen
520    9_
$a BACKGROUND: Although rare, allergic reactions to metal implants represent a diagnostic challenge in view of missing guidelines. OBJECTIVES: To develop an European expert consensus on characteristics of metal allergy reactions and the utility of various diagnostic tools in suspected metal implant allergy. METHODS: A nominal group technique (NGT) was applied to develop consensus statements. Initially an online literature database was created on a secure server to enable a comprehensive information. Twenty-three statements were formulated on potential aspects of metal implant allergy with a focus on diagnostics and grouped into five domains. For the consensus development, the panel of 12 experts initially did refine and reformulate those statements that were ambiguous or had unclear wording. By face-to-face (9/12) or virtual participation (3/12), an anonymous online voting was performed. RESULTS: Consensus (≥80% of agreement) was reached in 20/23 statements. The panel agreed that implant allergy despite being rare should be considered in case of persistent unexplained symptoms. It was, however, recommended to allow adequate time for resolution of symptoms associated with healing and integration of an implant. Obtaining questionnaire-aided standardized medical history and standardized scoring of patient outcomes was also considered an important step by all experts There was broad consensus regarding the utility/performance of patch testing with additional late reading. It was recognized that the lymphocyte transformation test (LTT) has to many limitations to be generally recommended. Prior to orthopaedic implant, allergy screening of patients without a history of potential allergy to implant components was not recommended. CONCLUSIONS: Using an expert consensus process, statements concerning allergy diagnostics in suspected metal implant allergy were created. Areas of nonconsensus were identified, stressing uncertainty among the experts around topics such as preoperative testing in assumed allergy, histological correlate of periimplant allergy and in vitro testing, which underscores the need for further research.
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    12
$a kovy $x škodlivé účinky $7 D008670
650    12
$a protézy a implantáty $x škodlivé účinky $7 D019736
650    12
$a konsensus $7 D032921
650    12
$a alergie $x diagnóza $7 D006967
650    _2
$a náplasťové testy $7 D010328
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
655    _2
$a přehledy $7 D016454
655    _2
$a konsensus - konference $7 D016446
700    1_
$a Arenberger, P $u Department of Dermatovenereology, Third Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and University Hospital of Kralovske Vinohrady, Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Bader, R $u Department of Orthopaedics, Rostock University Medical Center, Rostock, Germany
700    1_
$a Bircher, A J $u Department of Dermatology and Allergology, University Hospital and University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland
700    1_
$a Bruze, M $u Department of Occupational and Environmental Dermatology, Lund University, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden $1 https://orcid.org/0000000229193227
700    1_
$a de Graaf, N $u Department of Dermatology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands $1 https://orcid.org/0000000191705302
700    1_
$a Hartmann, D $u Department of Dermatology and Allergology, University Hospital, Munich, Germany $u München Klinik gGmbH, Munich, Germany $1 https://orcid.org/0000000210028133 $7 xx0273110
700    1_
$a Johansen, J D $u Department of Dermatology and Allergy, National Allergy Research Centre, University of Copenhagen, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Hellerup, Denmark
700    1_
$a Jowitz-Heinke, A $u Department of Orthopaedics, Rostock University Medical Center, Rostock, Germany
700    1_
$a Krenn, V $u MVZHZMD Trier GmbH, Trier, Germany
700    1_
$a Kurek, M $u Hospital MEDICAM, Gryfice, Poland
700    1_
$a Odgaard, A $u Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rigshospitalet - Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark $u Institute of Clinical Medicine, Copenhagen University, Copenhagen, Denmark
700    1_
$a Rustemeyer, T $u Department of Dermatology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands $1 https://orcid.org/0000000175800684
700    1_
$a Summer, B $u Department of Dermatology and Allergology, University Hospital, Munich, Germany $1 https://orcid.org/0000000281367335
700    1_
$a Thyssen, J P $u Department of Dermatology and Allergy, University of Copenhagen, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Hellerup, Denmark $1 https://orcid.org/0000000337701743
773    0_
$w MED00002983 $t Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV $x 1468-3083 $g Roč. 38, č. 8 (2024), s. 1471-1477
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38606660 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y - $z 0
990    __
$a 20241015 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20241024110608 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 2202062 $s 1231574
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC-MEDLINE
BMC    __
$a 2024 $b 38 $c 8 $d 1471-1477 $e 20240412 $i 1468-3083 $m Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV $n J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol $x MED00002983
GRA    __
$a 2015-029 $p European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20241015

Find record

Citation metrics

Archiving options