In this section
@inbook{Rodríguez-Merchán:2021:10.1007/978-3-030-80695-8_15,
author = {Rodríguez-Merchán, EC and Liddle, AD},
booktitle = {Controversies in Orthopaedic Surgery of the Lower Limb},
doi = {10.1007/978-3-030-80695-8_15},
pages = {151--159},
title = {Total Knee Arthroplasty in Patients with a History of Metal Allergy: Conventional Implant or Hypoallergenic Implant?},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80695-8_15},
year = {2021}
}
TY - CHAP
AB - 20–25% of patients experiencing TKA acquire hypersensitivity to metals, but solely less than 1% present symptoms (dermatitis, continuous painful synovitis of the knee or aseptic loosening of the implant). Currently, skin patch test (SPT), leukocyte migration inhibition test (LMIT) and lymphocyte transformation tests (LTT) are being habitually utilized to evaluate metal hypersensitivity. However, these tests are not fully dependable and most patients are diagnosed on the basis of self-reported reactions. Most patients with metal allergy patients tolerate the conventional implants without complications. Given the current controversy over whether or not to use a conventional primary implant in patients who report having a metal allergy, the logical decision is to use a “hypoallergenic” primary prosthesis. There are two “hypoallergenic” options: (1) equivalent design but with different materials (oxidized zirconium, ceramic or titanium-based alloys); (2) equivalent designs but with coatings, normally titanium niobium or titanium nitride.
AU - Rodríguez-Merchán,EC
AU - Liddle,AD
DO - 10.1007/978-3-030-80695-8_15
EP - 159
PY - 2021///
SP - 151
TI - Total Knee Arthroplasty in Patients with a History of Metal Allergy: Conventional Implant or Hypoallergenic Implant?
T1 - Controversies in Orthopaedic Surgery of the Lower Limb
UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80695-8_15
ER -