Total joint arthroplasty has proven to be efficient to relieve pain and regain mobility. In fact, most patients undergoing a total knee arthroplasty (TKA) are satisfied with their surgery (80 to 90%), yet 4 to 7% still complain of unexplainable pain and stiffness. Several authors have proposed that reactivity to the implant could explain this phenomenon. Still, no strong evidence supports this theory as of today. We aimed to determine the prevalence of metal and cement hypersensitivity in a cohort of patients with unexplained pain and stiffness after TKA. We retrieved data for a group of patients presenting unexplained pain and stiffness. We excluded all other potential known causes of pain. All patients were tested with a Lymphocyte Transformation Test from whole blood taps. We analysed data of hypersensitivity to metals (alloy particles of titanium and cobalt, aluminum, cobalt, nickel, zirconium, vanadium, molybdenum, cobalt, chromium and iron) and PMMA cement (bone cement monomer and particles). Fifty-three patients underwent a LTT for unexplained pain and stiffness after total knee arthroplasty between May 2012 and May 2015. The cohort consisted of 26 men and 27 women with a mean age of 66.3(±8.0) years. Six patients had no hypersensitivity (11.3%), leaving 88.7% of the cohort with hypersensitivity to metal and/or cement. Almost half the cohort of patients tested for PMMA was hypersensitive to cement (44.0%). The most common metal hypersensitivity was nickel (69.8%). Twelve patients presented sensitivity to only one metal (22.6%), whereas 35 patients were hypersensitive to more than one metal (66.0%). Eleven patients had revision surgery with a hypoallergenic prosthesis. Patients reported a significant diminution of pain as well as better knee function compared to preoperative status as early as 6 weeks postop, although some reported residual stiffness. The results of this study suggest that metal and/or cement hypersensitivity could play a role in cases of total knee arthroplasty with unexplained pain and stiffness. Randomised controlled clinical trials on the subject will be initiated by our team to further investigate this phenomenon

Currently, there is considerable interest in the role that metal allergy may play in the clinical performance of orthopaedic devices. The extant literature suggests that metal allergy is a real clinical phenomenon, albeit the prevalence and clinical impact are not defined. Degradation products in the form of ionic or particulate debris can complex with local proteins and alter their conformation so that they may not be recognised as self-proteins. This can result in an adaptive immune response. The typical paradigm proposed for such an allergy is that of a delayed type hypersensitivity response (Type 4) whereby the antigenic stimulus interacts with antigen presenting cells and T lymphocytes to elicit a cell mediated immune response. There is some evidence that patients with metal-on-metal bearings and/or high serum metal levels elicit more response to metal antigen challenge measured as either patch test sensitivity or lymphocyte proliferation. Thus, while there is an idiosyncratic aspect of the allergic response, there is also a dose response component. The diagnosis of metal allergy remains a challenge as patch testing has not been shown to correlate well with clinical symptoms. In-vitro assays, such as lymphocyte transformation testing, have promise but await robust clinical validation before they can be considered reliable diagnostic testing modalities. Allergy to implanted metal orthopaedic devices is a rare clinical event, and is a diagnosis of exclusion. Revision surgery should be considered a last resort with the understanding that the outcomes are unpredictable. Given the limitations of current diagnostic modalities, widespread screening of patients for metal allergies prior to TKA is not recommended

Introduction. There has been much controversy around metal on metal hip replacements of late due to adverse metal reactions. There is evidence implicating lymphocyte mediated response (type IV delayed-hypersensitivity) to metal debris generated by the implants as one of the main factors responsible for the reactions. Our understanding of these adverse reactions continues to improve but we also recognize that the majority of patients with MOM implants are asymptomatic with well functioning implants. Studies have shown up to 16% allergy to metal ions on pre-operative allergy patch testing. We set out to determine the incidence of hypersensitivity to Cobalt, Chromium and Molybdenum in a arthroplasty population. Method. We assayed whole blood using a validated optimized lymphocyte transformation test, MELISA as part of a prospective randomized study on large diameter bearing surfaces. We recruited 47 subjects, 19 males, 28 females (35–75 yrs). Specific exclusions included presence of metal implants in the body and industrial exposure to metals. Results. Results were available for 46 patients. Four patients (9%) demonstrated hypersensitivity to Cobalt and none to Chromium or Molybdenum. Two were female and two male. The result was weakly positive in three patients and strongly positive in one female. Conclusion. Hypersensitivity in patients without prior exposure to Cobalt, Chromium and Molybdenum is low. The relevance of a positive hypersensitivity test and implications on the choice of bearings is a subject that requires further research. NO DISCLOSURES