Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28364382›Full record

ReviewRheumatology and therapy2017

Hypersensitivity to Orthopedic Implants: A Review of the Literature.

Joseph Wawrzynski, Joseph A Gil, Avi D Goodman, Gregory R Waryasz

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Rheumatology and therapy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.0field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 84 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Engineering the Immune Response to Biomaterials.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Tissue response following implantation with the posterior dynamic distraction device (PDDD) in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS).European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Metallic Implants Used in Lumbar Interbody Fusion.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Joseph WawrzynskiWarren Alpert Medical School, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA.
Joseph A GilDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Warren Alpert Medical School, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA. joseph_gil@brown.edu.
Avi D GoodmanDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Warren Alpert Medical School, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA.
Gregory R WaryaszDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Warren Alpert Medical School, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA.
Brown University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Awareness of rare etiologies for implant failure is becoming increasingly important. In addition to the overall increase in joint arthroplasties, revision surgeries are projected to increase dramatically in the coming years, with volume increasing up to seven-fold between 2005 and 2030. The literature regarding the relationship between metal allergy and implant failure is controversial. It has proven difficult to determine whether sensitization is a cause or a consequence of implant failure. Testing patients with functional implants is not a clinically useful approach, as the rate of hypersensitivity is higher in implant recipients than in the general population, regardless of the status of the implant. As a result of the ineffectiveness of preoperative patch testing for predicting adverse outcomes, as well as the high cost of implementing such patch testing as standard procedure, most orthopedists and dermatologists agree that an alternative prosthesis should only be considered for patients with a history of allergy to a metal in the standard implant. In patients with a failed implant requiring revision surgery, hypersensitivity to an implant component should be considered in the differential diagnosis. Because a metal allergy to implant components is currently not commonly considered in the differential for joint failure in the orthopedic literature, there should be improved communication and collaboration between orthopedists and dermatologists when evaluating joint replacement patients with a presentation suggestive of allergy.

Indexed as

Contact dermatitisHypersensitivityMetal implantsOrthopedic implantsPatch testing

Identifiers

PMID28364382
PMCPMC5443731
OpenAlexW2601840086

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.