A case series of cementless revision total knee arthroplasty in patients with benzoyl peroxide allergy

• Published in: International orthopaedics Vol. 43; no. 10; pp. 2323 - 2331
• Main Authors: Fröschen, Frank S., Gravius, Nadine, Lau, Jan-Frederic, Randau, Thomas Martin, Kaup, Eva, Friedrich, Max J., Gravius, Sascha
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Berlin/Heidelberg Springer Berlin Heidelberg 01-10-2019
• Subjects: Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Original Paper; Orthopedics; Allergy; Total knee arthroplasty; Revision; Benzoyl peroxide; Nickel; Bone cement; Metal
• ISSN: 0341-2695; 1432-5195
• DOI: 10.1007/s00264-018-4273-4

Purpose
The contact allergens nickel, cobalt, and chromium are often discussed as possible triggers of allergic reactions to orthopedic implants. Additionally, acrylates and polymerization additives in bone cement (e.g., benzoyl peroxide (BPO)) have been implicated as triggers of eczema, wound healing disorders, and aseptic implant loosening. We report about six patients with aseptic loosening after total knee arthroplasty (TKA), who underwent revision surgery after testing positive for BPO hypersensitivity.
Methods
After clarification of possible other causes of implant failure, epicutaneous testing had been performed and the implants were replaced in a two-stage procedure with cementless, diaphyseal anchoring, hypoallergenic (TiNb-coated) revision endoprostheses.
Results
Epicutaneous testing revealed a BPO allergy in all six patients and an additional nickel allergy in three of the six patients. There was no histopathological or microbiological evidence for a periprosthetic infection. The clinical follow-up showed a low level of pain with good function, a stable knee joint, and proper implant position. The Knee Society Score (KSS) with its subscales Knee Score and Functional Score improved post-operatively from 43 to 70 points and from 47.5 to 68.3 points, respectively. Two implant-specific complications occurred: femoral stress shielding two years post-operatively with no further need for action and aseptic loosening of the tibial stem with the need of revision three years post-operatively.
Conclusions
The regression of complaints after replacement with cementless and nickel-free revision implants suggests allergic implant intolerance. Implantation of a cementless, hypoallergenic endoprosthesis might, therefore, be a surgical treatment strategy in patients with evidence of allergies.