Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 13, 2025
Treatment of Ankle Osteoarthritis with Total Ankle Replacement Through a Lateral Transfibular Approach
Published on: January 24, 2018
Metal hypersensitivity in foot & ankle orthopaedic surgery: A systematic review
Caroline Cristofaro1, Ellie B Pinsker2, Fatima Halai3
1Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
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.
