Metal hypersensitivity in foot & ankle orthopaedic surgery: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Metal hypersensitivity affects 10-15% of individuals. Orthopaedic implants contain various metals and, therefore, metal hypersensitivity may impact patient outcomes. Purpose: We report a systematic review of the literature on metal hypersensitivity in patients undergoing foot and ankle (F&A) surgery. Our goal is to provide an overview presenting symptoms, diagnostic methods, treatment, and clinical outcomes. Methods: A comprehensive literature search of Ovid MEDLINE and EMBASE was performed from its inception (01-Jan 1966) to 23-Nov 2021. MeSH search terms on F&A were used including orthopaedic surgeries, metal types, and hypersensitivity. All full-text, English, experimental and observational studies reporting on metal hypersensitivity in the context of foot and/or ankle surgeries using metallic orthopaedic devices were included. Article screening, critical appraisal, and data extraction was performed by two reviewers. Disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer. Results: Fifteen studies were identified, reporting on 45 patients (18 male and 27 female). Median age was 58 years and mean follow-up was 20.8 months. 42 static and three arthroplasty implants were included. In total, 19 patients (42.2%) were diagnosed with metal hypersensitivity to a constituent of their implant, including two (4.4%) patients diagnosed without metal hypersensitivity testing. Twenty-six patients (57.8%) tested negative to their metal implant components. Of the 19 patients allergic to a constituent of their implant, 14 underwent hardware removal and improved. Four patients were asymptomatic and the last was symptomatic, but not revised. Of these, 23 patients retained their hardware (eight with skin reactions) and two symptomatic patients underwent hardware removal. Conclusion: Metal hypersensitivity in the context of F&A surgery is not widely reported. It should be a differential diagnosis in patients who present with hypersensitivity-type symptoms once infection and mechanical failure are ruled out. This data informs a comprehensive algorithm for identifying and treating metal hypersensitivity in F&A patients. Level of evidence: Level IV.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".