Rejection of metal to metal prosthesis and skin sensitivity to cobalt

D Munro-Ashman, Adam Miller

Contact Dermatitis · 1976 · 102 citations · 9 references

Concepts

TL;DR

Metal‑to‑metal prostheses achieve satisfactory results in 90 % of patients, yet about half of failures may stem from allergic reactions to metals, especially cobalt. The study recommends that patients slated for metal‑to‑metal prostheses undergo thorough metal‑sensitivity histories and patch testing. The investigation involved patients with metal‑to‑metal prostheses, noting no reactions after metal/high‑density polyethylene implants. Among 35 patients with unsatisfactory outcomes, patch testing revealed metal sensitivities in 16 (13 cobalt, 4 nickel, 2 chromate), but only two exhibited skin lesions—nickel dermatitis and cobalt‑induced vasculitis—suggesting titanium 318 as a potential alternative to cobalt‑chrome alloy.

Abstract

Metal to metal prostheses give satisfactory results in 90% of patients. About half of the failure rate may be due to allergic reaction to the metals involved, particularly cobalt. A total of 35 patients in this unsatisfactory group have been patch-tested; 16 were positive to metals, 13 to cobalt, 4 to nickel, and 2 to chromate. Only two patients showed any skin lesions - one a localized dermatitis round the knee joint from nickel sensitivity, and one to cobalt who had a widespread scattered circular erythematous lesion suggestive of a generalized allergic vasculitis. Patients requiring a metal/metal prosthesis should have a careful history taken for metal sensitivity and be patch-tested with the metals. All the patients in this investigation had metal/metal prostheses and no reaction was seen after metal/high density polyethylene implants. Titanium 318 may be a satisfactory substitute for cobalt chrome alloy if reactions are encountered.

References

9