Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31852052›Full record

ArticleThe Permanente journal2020

Incidence of Metal Hypersensitivity in Orthopedic Surgical Patients Who Self-Report Hypersensitivity History.

Mark Schultzel, Christopher M Klein, Marine Demirjian, Colin Blout, John M Itamura

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Permanente journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Increased 30-Day Readmission Rates in Total Knee Arthroplasty Patients Using Hypoallergenic Implants.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Orthopedic Dermatopathies: Skin Manifestations in Orthopedic Conditions.Journal of orthopaedics and sports medicine · 2024
    Article
  7. A comprehensive summary of disease variants implicated in metal allergy.Journal of toxicology and environmental health. Part B, Critical reviews · 2022
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Mark SchultzelSouthern California Permanente Medical Group, Orthopedic Medical Group of San Diego, Synergy Orthopedic Specialists Medical Group, San Diego.
Christopher M KleinKerlan-Jobe Orthopaedic Clinic, White Memorial Medical Center, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA.
Marine DemirjianDepartment of Allergy and Immunology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Colin BloutKerlan-Jobe Orthopaedic Clinic, White Memorial Medical Center, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA.
John M ItamuraKerlan-Jobe Orthopaedic Clinic, White Memorial Medical Center, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA.
Cedars-Sinai Medical Center · USCardiovascular Medical Group · USUniversity of California, Los Angeles · USWhite Memorial Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionMetallic implants are integral to the practice of orthopedic surgery. Delayed-onset T-cell-mediated metal hypersensitivity (diagnosed by patch testing) is reported in 10% to 17% of the general population. Inconclusive evidence exists about the role of metal hypersensitivity in persistently painful or aseptic loosening of arthroplasties. Literature suggests that preoperative patch testing may influence surgical practice.

objectiveTo determine the incidence of metal hypersensitivity in orthopedic surgical patients who self-report hypersensitivity and to characterize which metals are most commonly implicated.

methodsA retrospective chart review of patients from a single surgeon's practice was conducted during a 1-year period. All patients were questioned about metal hypersensitivity history; all patients who responded affirmatively were sent for patch testing for specific metals.

resultsOnly 41 (4.9%) of 840 patients self-reported any metal hypersensitivity. Of these, 34 (83%) were patch-test positive to 1 or more metals. There were 27 whose test results were positive for nickel, 4 each to cobalt or gold thiosulfate, and 1 each to tin or titanium. Seven patients had positive results to multiple metals, all of whom were also nickel hypersensitive. Six patients had metal orthopedic implants before patch testing, and 4 (67%) tested positively to a metal in their implant.

conclusionMetal hypersensitivity can be concerning for treating surgeons and patients. Greater awareness of a history to hypersensitivity may prevent patient exposure to implants containing metals that may cause hypersensitivity. Non-metal-containing or nonreactive metal implants are an option for patients in whom metal hypersensitivity is suspected or confirmed.

Indexed as

Orthopedic ProceduresFemaleHumansHypersensitivityIncidenceMaleMetalsPatch TestsProstheses and ImplantsRetrospective StudiesSelf ReportMetals

Identifiers

PMID31852052
PMCPMC6907898
OpenAlexW3004583198

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.