Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26526701›Full record

ArticleInternational orthopaedics2016

Allergic reactions in arthroplasty: myth or serious problem?

Daniel Guenther, Peter Thomas, Daniel Kendoff, Mohamed Omar, Thorsten Gehrke, Carl Haasper

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International orthopaedics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Increased inflammatory response is associated with less favorable functional results 5 years after total knee arthroplasty.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2023
    Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Contact Allergy: A Review of Current Problems from a Clinical Perspective.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2018
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Daniel GuentherOrthopaedic Department, Helios-Endo Klinik Hamburg, Holstenstraße 9, 22767, Hamburg, Germany. guenther.daniel@mh-hannover.de.
Peter ThomasDepartment of Dermatology und Allergology, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Frauenlobstraße 9-11, 80337, Munich, Germany.
Daniel KendoffOrthopaedic Department, Helios-Endo Klinik Hamburg, Holstenstraße 9, 22767, Hamburg, Germany.
Mohamed OmarTrauma Department, Hannover Medical School (MHH), Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany.
Thorsten GehrkeOrthopaedic Department, Helios-Endo Klinik Hamburg, Holstenstraße 9, 22767, Hamburg, Germany.
Carl HaasperOrthopaedic Department, Helios-Endo Klinik Hamburg, Holstenstraße 9, 22767, Hamburg, Germany.
Helios Endo-Klinik Hamburg · DELudwig-Maximilians-Universität München · DEMedizinische Hochschule Hannover · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence of sensitisation to chromium, cobalt, nickel, or a cement component in patients who received endoprosthetic surgery at our institution. Also, we aimed to assess the portion related to allergic reactions in endoprosthetic revisions and to follow-up those patients after allergic reaction related revisions.

methodsWe selected patients with a pre-operative known sensitisation to chromium, cobalt, nickel, or a cement component for a post-operative allergic reaction. All patients who received revision surgery because of a potential allergic reaction were followed up post revision surgery.

resultsEight hundred fifty-five patients were pre-operative known to have a sensitisation to chromium, cobalt, nickel, or a cement component. Six hundred eighty-two patients (79.8 %) received a primary arthroplasty, and 173 patients (20.2 %) received a revision surgery. Seventeen patients (2.0 %) were revised because of allergic reactions. Allergic reactions were the cause for approximately 0.2 % of all endoprosthetic revisions and for 9.8 % of revisions in patients with sensitisation to one of the reviewed components. Potential allergens were strictly avoided in the replaced prosthesis. Outcome scores improved post-operatively.

conclusionsThe allergic patient should be thoroughly informed about potential reactions resulting from implant choice. Our study can serve as risk assessments by quantifying the incidence of allergic reactions due to endoprosthetic treatment.

Indexed as

AdultAgedArthroplasty, Replacement, HipArthroplasty, Replacement, KneeBone CementsChromiumCobaltDermatitis, Allergic ContactFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMetal-on-Metal Joint ProsthesesMetalsMiddle AgedNickelBone CementsChromiumCobaltMetalsNickelAllergyArthroplastyImmune reactionNickelProsthesisRevision

Identifiers

PMID26526701
OpenAlexW1909915627

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.