ArticleThe Permanente journal2020
Incidence of Metal Hypersensitivity in Orthopedic Surgical Patients Who Self-Report Hypersensitivity History.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Metal sensitivity in total joint arthroplasty: None of the current diagnostic tests are reliable, sensitive and specific enough to guide treatment decisions!Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2025Pooled it
- Increased 30-Day Readmission Rates in Total Knee Arthroplasty Patients Using Hypoallergenic Implants.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2026Article
- Foot and ankle biomaterials: a comprehensive review of current applications, challenges, and future directions.Journal of orthopaedic translation · 2026Review
- Allergic Reaction to Titanium Alloy Osteosynthesis Implants: A Case Report of Three Patients.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Existing and Novel Assessment Methods for Metal Sensitivity in Elective Lower-Limb Arthroplasty-A Scoping Review.Arthroplasty today · 2024Article
- Orthopedic Dermatopathies: Skin Manifestations in Orthopedic Conditions.Journal of orthopaedics and sports medicine · 2024Article
- A comprehensive summary of disease variants implicated in metal allergy.Journal of toxicology and environmental health. Part B, Critical reviews · 2022Review
- Self-reported metal hypersensitivity in patients undergoing unicondylar knee arthroplasty.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2021Article
- A Possible Relationship between Peri-Implantitis, Titanium Hypersensitivity, and External Tooth Resorption: Metal-Free Alternative to Titanium Implants.Case reports in dentistry · 2021Article
- Challenges in Bone Tissue Regeneration: Stem Cell Therapy, Biofunctionality and Antimicrobial Properties of Novel Materials and Its Evolution.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.