Histopathological investigations in soft tissue surrounding metallic orthopaedic implants by extravasated eosinophil leukocytes
The amount of extravasated eosinophil leukocytes in soft tissue surrounding a metallic orthopaedic implant indirectly allows conclusions about the allergenicity of the implant. As yet the implications of the distance of the biopsy from the implant have not been studied. In a prospective study we his...
Saved in:
Published in: | Zeitschrift für orthopädie und ihre grenzgebiete Vol. 140; no. 1; p. 90 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , |
Format: | Journal Article |
Language: | German |
Published: |
Germany
01-01-2002
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | Get more information |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Summary: | The amount of extravasated eosinophil leukocytes in soft tissue surrounding a metallic orthopaedic implant indirectly allows conclusions about the allergenicity of the implant. As yet the implications of the distance of the biopsy from the implant have not been studied.
In a prospective study we histocytologically evaluated soft tissue biopsies gained during routine removal of orthopaedic implant material in 81 patients. By means of a quantitative and semiquantitative method, material directly adjacent to and 1 cm distant from the implant was examined for eosinophil leukocytes.
In respect to the number of eosinophil granulocytes, the two groups showed no significant discrepancies (p = 0.55). lnterestingly, correlation analysis revealed a significant difference in the number of eosinophiles between implant-adjacent and -distant tissue in some individuals. Consecutive semiquantitative analysis could show that there was no correlation concerning the number of eosinophiles between results gained at 1 cm distance from the implant and material in the direct vicinity of the biomaterial.
Our results suggest that when utilising a histocytological method to determine metal sensitivity of a biomaterial on surrounding soft tissue, not only material directly adjacent to the implant but also at a distance of approximately 1 cm should be evaluated. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0044-3220 |
DOI: | 10.1055/s-2002-22097 |