MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387191067 · doi:10.1016/j.jcot.2023.102249

Metal hypersensitivity in foot & ankle orthopaedic surgery: A systematic review

2023· review· en· W4387191067 on OpenAlexaff
Caroline Cristofaro, Ellie Pinsker, Fatima Halai, Jesse Wolfstadt, Timothy R. Daniels, Mansur Halai

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Orthopaedics and Trauma · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicContact Dermatitis and Allergies
Canadian institutionsSinai Health SystemMaple Leaf Medical ClinicSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAsymptomaticContext (archaeology)Foot (prosody)AnkleImplantOrthopedic surgerySystematic reviewMEDLINESurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.363
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.006
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.210
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.227 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Orthopaedics and TraumaSame topicContact Dermatitis and AllergiesFrench-language works237,207