Complicaciones dermatológicas no infecciosas de los implantes ortopédicos: una revisión de la literatura

Complicaciones dermatológicas no infecciosas de los implantes ortopédicos: una revisión de la literatura Non-infectious dermatological complications of orthopedic implants: a literatura review

Published 2021-01-22


https://doi.org/10.30554/archmed.21.2.3608.2021
Open | Download
PDF (Spanish) FLIP HTML (Spanish) epub (Spanish) XML (Spanish)
Issue
Vol. 21 No. 2 (2021): .
Section
Artículos de Revisión
How to Cite
Ramírez Macía, A., & Quiroz Fino, N. J. . (2021). Complicaciones dermatológicas no infecciosas de los implantes ortopédicos: una revisión de la literatura: Non-infectious dermatological complications of orthopedic implants: a literatura review. Archivos De Medicina , 21(2). https://doi.org/10.30554/archmed.21.2.3608.2021
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS) BibTeX
DOI

https://doi.org/10.30554/archmed.21.2.3608.2021
Dimensions
PlumX

How to Cite

Ramírez Macía, A., & Quiroz Fino, N. J. . (2021). Complicaciones dermatológicas no infecciosas de los implantes ortopédicos: una revisión de la literatura: Non-infectious dermatological complications of orthopedic implants: a literatura review. Archivos De Medicina , 21(2). https://doi.org/10.30554/archmed.21.2.3608.2021

Download Citation

license
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Alicia Ramírez Macía
Clínica de la Policía Nacional-
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3045-1059 ORCID
Nerly Janeth Quiroz Fino
Clínica La Estancia. Popayán
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7969-1822 ORCID
Show authors biography

Alicia Ramírez Macía,

Médica y cirujana. Clínica de la Policía Nacional- La Toscana. Manizales, Colombia

Nerly Janeth Quiroz Fino,

Médica y cirujana. Clínica La Estancia. Popayán, Colombia.

Introduction. The overall prevalence of sensitivity to metal components has been estimated at approximately 10% to 15. Objective. The objective of the present review is to characterize cutaneous hypersensitivity complications that occur secondary to the implantation of orthopedic prosthetic devices. Materials and methods. An open search was performed in the databases EBSCO, PubMed-Medline, Google academic, SciELO, Embase biomedical and Cochrane Library with the terms Arthroplastym, hypersensitivity, prostheses and implants, in the English and Spanish languages, without limiting the level of evidence. Results. Thirty nine articles were found with important information for the current review. Conclusions. Skin reactions of hypersensitivity to metal are infrequent. More common inflammatory causes such as infection, instability, loosening or malrotation of the implant, among others, should be excluded. Currently there is no gold standard regarding the diagnosis, treatment or prevention of hypersensitivity.

Article visits 408 | PDF visits 244

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
  1. Mulhall K, Ghomrawi H, Scully S, Callaghan JJ,
  2. Saleh KJ. Current etiologies and modes of
  3. failure in total knee arthroplasty revision. Clin
  4. Orthop Relat Res. 2006; 446(446):45–50.
  5. DOI: 10.1097/01.blo.0000214421.21712.62
  6. Bourne RB, Chesworth BM, Davis AM, Mahomed
  7. NN, Charron KJ. Patient satisfaction after total
  8. knee arthroplasty: Who is satisfied and who is
  9. not? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010; 468(1):57–63.
  10. DOI:10.1007/s11999-009-1119-9
  11. Haidukewych GJ, Jacofsky DJ, Pagnano MW,
  12. Trousdale RT. Functional results after revision
  13. of well-fixed components for stiffness after primary
  14. total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2005;
  15. (2):133–138. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2004.09.057
  16. Merritt K, Rodrigo JJ. Immune response to synthetic
  17. materials: Sensitization of patients receiving
  18. orthopaedic implants. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996;
  19. :71–79.
  20. Hallab N, Merritt K, Jacobs JJ. Metal sensitivity in
  21. patients with orthopaedic implants. J Bone Joint
  22. Surg Am. 2001; 83(3):428–436.
  23. DOI: 10.2106/00004623-200103000-00017
  24. Granchi D, Cenni E, Tigani D, Trisolino G, Baldini
  25. N, Giunti A. Sensitivity to implant materials in
  26. patients with total knee arthroplasties. Biomaterials.
  27. ; 29(10):1494–1500.
  28. DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.11.038
  29. Niki Y, Matsumoto H, Otani T, Yatabe T, Kondo M,
  30. Yoshimine F, et al. Screening for symptomatic
  31. metal sensitivity: A prospective study of 92
  32. patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty.
  33. Biomaterials. 2005; 26(9):1019–1026.
  34. DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2004.03.038
  35. Verma SB, Mody B, Gawkrodger DJ. Dermatitis on
  36. the knee following knee replacement: A minority
  37. of cases show contact allergy to chromate,
  38. cobalt or nickel but a causal association is unproven.
  39. Contact Dermatitis. 2006; 54(4):228–229.
  40. DOI: 10.1111/j.0105-1873.2006.0775o.x
  41. Handa S, Dogra S, Prasad R. Metal sensitivity in
  42. a patient with a total knee replacement. Contact
  43. Dermatitis. 2003; 49(5):259–260.
  44. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0105-1873.2003.0225b.x
  45. Beecker J, Gordon J, Pratt M. An interesting case
  46. of joint prosthesis allergy. Dermatitis. 2009;
  47. (2):E4–E9.
  48. Gao X, He R, Yan S, Wu L. Dermatitis associated
  49. with chromium following total knee arthroplasty.
  50. J Arthroplasty. 2011; 26(4):665e13-665e16.
  51. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2010.06.002
  52. Anand A, McGlynn F, Jiranek W. Metal hypersensitivity:
  53. Can it mimic infection?. J Arthroplasty.
  54. ; 24(5):826e25-826.e28.
  55. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2008.05.002
  56. Morwood MP, Garrigues GE. Shoulder arthroplasty
  57. in the patient with metal hypersensitivity. J
  58. Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015; 24(7):1156–1164.
  59. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2015.01.015
  60. Disegi JA, Eschbach L. Stainless steel in bone
  61. surgery. Injury. 2000; 31(Suppl.4):2–6.
  62. DOI: 10.1016/S0020-1383(00)80015-7
  63. Teo WZ, Schalock PC. Metal Hypersensitivity
  64. Reactions to Orthopedic Implants. Dermatol
  65. Ther (Heidelb). 2017; 7(1):53-64.
  66. DOI: 10.1007/s13555-016-0162-1
  67. Lachiewicz PF, Watters TS, Jacobs JJ. Metal Hypersensitivity
  68. and Total Knee Arthroplasty. J Am
  69. Acad Orthop Surg. 2016; 24(2):106-112.
  70. DOI: 10.5435/JAAOS-D-14-00290
  71. Mahendra G, Pandit H, Kliskey K, Murray D, Gill
  72. HS, Athanasou N. Necrotic and inflammatory
  73. changes in metal-on-metal resurfacing hip arthroplasties.
  74. Acta Orthop. 2009; 80(6):653–659.
  75. DOI: 10.3109/17453670903473016
  76. Fang CS, Harvie P, Gibbons CL, Whitwell D, Athanasou
  77. NA, Ostlere S. The imaging spectrum of
  78. peri-articular inflammatory masses following
  79. metal-on-metal hip resurfacing. Skeletal Radiol.
  80. ; 37(8):715–722.
  81. DOI: 10.1007/s00256-008-0492-x
  82. Willert HG, Buchhorn GH, Fayyazi A, Flury R, Windler
  83. M, Koster G, et al. Metal-on-metal bearings
  84. and hypersensitivity in patients with artificial
  85. hip joints. A clinical and histomorphological
  86. study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005; 87(1):28–36.
  87. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.A.02039pp
  88. Mikhael MM, Hanssen AD, Sierra RJ. Failure of
  89. metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty mimicking
  90. hip infection. A report of two cases. J Bone Joint
  91. Surg Am. 2009; 91(2):443–446.
  92. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.H.00603
  93. Campbell P, Shimmin A, Walter L, Solomon M. Metal
  94. sensitivity as a cause of groin pain in metalon-
  95. metal hip resurfacing. J Arthroplasty. 2008;
  96. (7):1080–1085. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2007.09.024
  97. Jensen P, Thyssen JP, Retpen JB, Menne T. Cobalt
  98. allergy and suspected aseptic lymphocytedominated
  99. vascular-associated lesion following
  100. total hip arthroplasty. Contact Dermatitis. 2009;
  101. (4):238–239.
  102. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0536.2009.01599.x
  103. Counsell A, Heasley R, Arumilli B, Paul A. A groin
  104. mass caused by metal particle debris after hip resurfacing.
  105. Acta Orthop Belg. 2008; 74(6):870–874.
  106. Rostoker G, Robin J, Binet O, Blamoutier J, Paupe
  107. J, Lessana-Leibowitch M, et al. Dermatitis due to
  108. orthopaedic implants: a review of literature and
  109. report of three cases. J Bone Joint Surg. 1987;
  110. (9):1408–1412.
  111. Merle C, Vigan M, Devred D, Girardin P, Adessi
  112. B, Laurent R. et al. Generalized eczema from
  113. Vitallium osteosynthesis material. Contact Dermatitis.
  114. ; 27(4):257–258.
  115. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0536.1992.tb03259.x
  116. Ridley CM. How relevant is cobalt sensitivity in
  117. a patient with unsatisfactory total knee replacement?.
  118. Clin Exp Dermatol. 1977; 2(4):401-404.
  119. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2230.1977.tb01582.x
  120. Symeonides PP, Paschaloglu C, Papageorgiou S. An
  121. allergic reaction after fixation of a fracture using
  122. a Vitallium plate. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1973;
  123. (4):251–252. DOI: 10.1016/0091-6749(73)90145-0
  124. Munro-Ashman D, Miller AJ. Rejection of metal
  125. to metal prosthesis and skin sensitivity to cobalt.
  126. Contact Dermatitis. 1976; 2(2):65–67.
  127. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0536.1976.tb02986.x
  128. Bergschmidt P, Bader R, Mittelmeier W. Metal hypersensitivity
  129. in total knee arthroplasty: Revision
  130. surgery using a ceramic femoral component.
  131. The Knee. 2012; 19(2):144–147.
  132. DOI: 10.1016/j.knee.2011.01.001
  133. McMaster WC, Patel J. Adverse local tissue response
  134. lesion of the knee associated with Morse
  135. taper corrosion. J Arthroplasty. 2013; 28(2):375.
  136. e5-375.e8. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2012.04.005
  137. Thakur R, Ast M, McGraw M, Bostrom M, Rodriguez
  138. J, Parks M. Severe persistent synovitis after
  139. cobalt-chromium total knee arthroplasty requiring
  140. revision. Orthopedics. 2013; 36(4):520–524.
  141. DOI: 10.3928/01477447-20130327-34
  142. Thomsen M, Rozak M, Thomas P. Pain in a
  143. chromium-allergic patient with total knee arthroplasty:
  144. Disappearance of symptoms after
  145. revision with a special surface-coated TKA. A
  146. case report. Acta Orthop. 2011; 82(3):386–388.
  147. DOI: 10.3109/17453674.2011.579521
  148. Thyssen JP, Jakobsen SS, Engkilde K, Johansen
  149. JD, Soballe K, Menne T. The association between
  150. metal allergy, total hip arthroplasty, and
  151. revision. Acta Orthop. 2009; 80(6):646–652.
  152. DOI: 10.3109/17453670903487008
  153. Park Y, Moon Y, Lim S, Yang J, Ahn G, Choi Y.
  154. Early osteolysis following second-generation
  155. metal-on-metal hip replacement. J Bone Joint
  156. Surg Am. 2005; 87(7):1515–1521.
  157. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.D.02641
  158. Antony FC, Holden CA. Metal allergy resurfaces
  159. in failed hip endoprostheses. Contact Dermatitis.
  160. ; 48(1):49–50.
  161. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0536.2003.480108_4.x
  162. Milavec-Puretic V, Orlic D, Marusic A. Sensitivity
  163. to metals in 40 patients with failed hip endoprosthesis.
  164. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1998; 117(6-
  165. :383–386. DOI: 10.1007/s004020050272
  166. Phedy P, Djaja YP, Boedijono DR, Wahyudi M, Silitonga
  167. J, Solichin I. Hypersensitivity to orthopaedic
  168. implant manifested as erythroderma: Timing
  169. of implant removal. Int J Surg Case Rep. 2018;
  170. :110-114. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijscr.2018.06.011
  171. Basko-Plluska JL, Thyssen JP, Schalock PC. Cutaneous
  172. and systemic hypersensitivity reactions
  173. to metallic implants. Dermatitis. 2011; 22(2):65–79.
  174. DOI: 10.2310/6620.2011.10055
  175. Nakamura S, Yasunaga Y, Ikuta Y, Shimogaki K,
  176. Hamada N, Takata N. Autoantibodies to red
  177. cells associated with metallosis—a case report.
  178. Acta Orthop Scand. 1997; 68(5):495–496
  179. DOI: 10.3109/17453679708996269

Information

Keywords

QR code

Sistema OJS 3.4.0.10 - Metabiblioteca |