Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30220068›Full record

ReviewClinical reviews in allergy & immunology2019

Allergy to Surgical Implants.

Karin A Pacheco

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical reviews in allergy & immunology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing papers in PubMed
11.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

56 citing papers in PubMed, 149 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Back to the Basics: Bare Metal Stents.Seminars in interventional radiology · 2025
    Review
  9. Engineering the Immune Response to Biomaterials.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Karin A PachecoDivision of Environmental & Occupational Health Sciences, National Jewish Health, 1400 Jackson St., Denver, CO, 80206, USA. pachecok@njhealth.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2424-5446
Colorado School of Public Health · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Surgical implants are essential elements of repair procedures to correct worn out joints, damaged spinal components, heart and vascular disease, and chronic pain. However, many of the materials that provide stability, flexibility, and durability to the implants are also immunogenic. Fortunately, allergic responses to surgical implants are infrequent. When they do occur, however, the associated pain, swelling, inflammation, and decreased range of motion can significantly impair the implant function. Given the high numbers of joint replacements performed in the developed world, allergic reactions to orthopedic implants form the largest category of allergic responses. The most important allergens in this category include nickel, cobalt, chromium, and bone cement. These allergens are also the most important in reactions to spinal surgeries. Multiple cardiac and neurostimulatory devices are constructed of metals and adhesives that can be sensitizing in some individuals. Implantable pulse generators, important in cardiac pacemakers, gastric stimulators, and neurostimulators, may include components made of stainless steel, titanium alloy, platinum and iridium, epoxy resins, poly methyl methacrylates, and isocyanates, all of which are immunogenic in some patients. Cardiac stents and patches are often made of Nitinol, a composite of nickel and titanium. More surgical procedures are closed using skin glues, which are also capable of triggering a blistering contact dermatitis. Patch testing is the gold standard to determine sensitization, and this review provides a list of standard allergens to test for different implants. The patients most appropriate for testing include (1) pre-operative joint replacement patients with a prior history of skin reactions to metal jewelry, jean snaps, watch bands, metal glass frames, artificial nails, or skin glue; (2) post-operative joint replacement failure patients needing revision without an obvious cause such as infection or mechanical incompatibility; and (3) post-operative cardiac or neurological patients with localized rash, pain, swelling, or inflammation near or over the implant.

Indexed as

AllergensHost vs Graft ReactionHumansHypersensitivityProstheses and ImplantsTitaniumAllergensTitaniumAdhesive allergyContact dermatitisJoint failureJoint replacementMetal allergyMethyl methacrylateNickelRashSurgical implant

Identifiers

PMID30220068
OpenAlexW2892199527

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.