Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42896016›Full record

SynthesisJBJS reviews2026

Metal Hypersensitivity Reactions Following Spinal Implants: A Systematic Review.

Joseph Abbo, Jacob Thomas, Christian Stipho, Erik Nakken, Rakesh Patel, Joshua D Piche, IIyas Aleem

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in JBJS reviews, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Joseph AbboUniversity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.ORCID 0009-0009-3325-9602
Jacob ThomasOakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine, Rochester, Michigan.ORCID 0009-0007-8736-3347
Christian StiphoUniversity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.ORCID 0009-0007-2154-8170
Erik NakkenDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.ORCID 0000-0003-3773-3710
Rakesh PatelDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.ORCID 0000-0003-2726-181
Joshua D PicheDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.ORCID 0000-0001-6859-6478
IIyas AleemDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.ORCID 0000-0003-4818-8578

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMetal hypersensitivity reactions are infrequently reported but clinically significant after spinal implant surgery. Clinical presentation can mimic infection or mechanical failure, making diagnosis difficult. Evidence to guide diagnosis and management is largely limited to short case series and case reports. The purpose of this study was to systematically review the clinical presentation, diagnostic methods, and outcomes of metal hypersensitivity associated with spinal implants.

methodsA systematic review was conducted of PubMed, Embase, and Scopus from inception through June 22, 2026, in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Title and abstract screening, full-text review, and data extraction were performed independently by 2 reviewers with conflicts resolved by a third reviewer. Eligible studies included adult patients with suspected or confirmed metal hypersensitivity following spinal implant surgery that reported patient-level clinical outcomes.

resultsFifteen studies with a total of 19 patients met inclusion criteria (53% female, 42% male, and 5% not reported). The median patient age was 47 years (range, 19-69). Twelve procedures (63%) were fusion-based, while 7 (37%) were motion preserving, including disk arthroplasty and artificial facet replacement systems. Common clinical presentations included persistent pain, with 8 patients (42%) exhibiting dermatologic manifestations. Metal hypersensitivity was immunologically confirmed by positive patch testing and/or lymphocyte transformation testing in 11 patients (58%), while 8 (42%) were diagnosed clinically. Onset of symptoms ranged from immediately postoperatively to 15 years after implantation. Eighteen patients underwent removal or revision with clinical improvement in 14 of 16 with a reported outcome (88%).

conclusionMetal hypersensitivity reactions following spinal implants are infrequently reported but may present either immediately or in a delayed manner with symptoms that mimic more common postoperative complications, such as infection or pseudarthrosis, or may present with dermatologic manifestations. In cases where other etiologies are ruled out, hardware removal was frequently, though not invariably, associated with clinical improvement, which was reported narratively rather than by validated outcome measures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level V. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Indexed as

HypersensitivityMetalsProstheses and ImplantsAdultFemaleHumansMetals

Identifiers

PMID42896016
PMCPMC13668027

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.