[Histopathological differential diagnostics in context of joint implant allergic reactions]

Total joint replacement has greatly increased over the last decades and so have endoprothesis-associated pathologies. European studies have shown a 10-year durability varying from 88% to 95%. By means of histopathology different pathogenetic synovial-like interface membrane (SLIM) patterns that lead to reduction of implant durability can be discerned, such as periprosthetic particles, bacterial infections and arthrofibrosis. Subsequently, SLIM types have been determined in a revised consensus classification including particle-induced type (type I) so-called non-septic loosening, infection type (type II) so-called septic loosening, combination type (type III) of bacterial and particle-induced types, indifferent type with mechanical and functional disorders (type IV), osseus pathologies (type V), arthrofibrotic type (type VI, endoprosthesis-associated arthrofibrosis) and allergic/immunological/toxic reactions to prosthesis material (type VII). Particles are characterized histopathologically according to the Krenn particle algorithm. In cases of severe lymphocyte/macrophage infiltration, necrosis, abrasion particle detection and granuloma formation, a toxic or allergic reaction to implant material should be considered. As a direct abrasion particle-induced toxicity cannot be differentiated from a particle-induced allergic type VII reaction to implant material, the histopathological diagnosis of toxic reaction to implant material or allergic reaction to implant material should be made with caution and only in association with immunological, allergic and clinical data. It is recommended that tissue samples should be arthroscopically taken from different regions: close to the prosthesis, distant from the prosthesis and from bone tissue. The pathologist should be given information concerning clinical, allergological and microbiological data.