Mark J Taliercio, Rawaa K Alnabulsi, Priya A Uppal, Ian M Shaw, Kristy M Semenza, Muhammad A Pasha
{"title":"金属植入物过敏:一家大学过敏症诊所的回顾性队列分析。","authors":"Mark J Taliercio, Rawaa K Alnabulsi, Priya A Uppal, Ian M Shaw, Kristy M Semenza, Muhammad A Pasha","doi":"10.2500/aap.2024.45.240005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Concern of metal sensitization in pre- and postsurgical evaluation is growing, with the recent guidelines remaining the criterion standard for consideration of patch testing. Information remains scarce on surgical screening in the groups of patients who reported a history of metal sensitivity versus those with no reported history. <b>Objective:</b> The objective of this study was to assess the utility of patch testing in surgical candidates based on reported metal allergy history. The secondary objective was to evaluate the utility and outcomes in postsurgical patch testing. <b>Methods:</b> Nine hundred and thirty-one patient charts of patients with the diagnosis of \"contact dermatitis\" who underwent an evaluation at a single allergy clinic site between January 2013 and December 2022 were identified and reviewed as part of a retrospective chart review study. Patients were included in subgroups based on the time of patch testing and history of reported metal allergy. <b>Results:</b> In all, 67 patients underwent patch testing, 10 (14.9%) of whom were surgical candidates without a history of metal sensitivity, 31 (46.2%) of whom were surgical candidates with a history of metal sensitivity, and 26 (38.8%) of whom were postsurgical patients. Twenty-nine (43.3%) of patients had positive patch testing results, with only one (10%) in the presurgical group, 17 (54.8%) in the presurgical with a history of metal sensitivity, and 11 (42.3%) in the postsurgical group. Zero patients in our cohort without metal sensitivity who were undergoing the Nuss procedure had positive reactions on patch testing, whereas two of four (50%) with reported metal sensitivity who were undergoing the Nuss procedure had positive relevant metal reactions. <b>Conclusion:</b> Ambiguity in the utility of patch testing for surgical decision making remains, despite common utilization. Recent guidelines along with coordination of care among the surgeon, allergist, and patient remains the criterion standard of care.</p>","PeriodicalId":7646,"journal":{"name":"Allergy and asthma proceedings","volume":"45 3","pages":"186-194"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Metal implant allergy: A retrospective cohort analysis at a university allergy practice.\",\"authors\":\"Mark J Taliercio, Rawaa K Alnabulsi, Priya A Uppal, Ian M Shaw, Kristy M Semenza, Muhammad A Pasha\",\"doi\":\"10.2500/aap.2024.45.240005\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Concern of metal sensitization in pre- and postsurgical evaluation is growing, with the recent guidelines remaining the criterion standard for consideration of patch testing. Information remains scarce on surgical screening in the groups of patients who reported a history of metal sensitivity versus those with no reported history. <b>Objective:</b> The objective of this study was to assess the utility of patch testing in surgical candidates based on reported metal allergy history. The secondary objective was to evaluate the utility and outcomes in postsurgical patch testing. <b>Methods:</b> Nine hundred and thirty-one patient charts of patients with the diagnosis of \\\"contact dermatitis\\\" who underwent an evaluation at a single allergy clinic site between January 2013 and December 2022 were identified and reviewed as part of a retrospective chart review study. Patients were included in subgroups based on the time of patch testing and history of reported metal allergy. <b>Results:</b> In all, 67 patients underwent patch testing, 10 (14.9%) of whom were surgical candidates without a history of metal sensitivity, 31 (46.2%) of whom were surgical candidates with a history of metal sensitivity, and 26 (38.8%) of whom were postsurgical patients. Twenty-nine (43.3%) of patients had positive patch testing results, with only one (10%) in the presurgical group, 17 (54.8%) in the presurgical with a history of metal sensitivity, and 11 (42.3%) in the postsurgical group. Zero patients in our cohort without metal sensitivity who were undergoing the Nuss procedure had positive reactions on patch testing, whereas two of four (50%) with reported metal sensitivity who were undergoing the Nuss procedure had positive relevant metal reactions. <b>Conclusion:</b> Ambiguity in the utility of patch testing for surgical decision making remains, despite common utilization. Recent guidelines along with coordination of care among the surgeon, allergist, and patient remains the criterion standard of care.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7646,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Allergy and asthma proceedings\",\"volume\":\"45 3\",\"pages\":\"186-194\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Allergy and asthma proceedings\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2500/aap.2024.45.240005\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ALLERGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Allergy and asthma proceedings","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2500/aap.2024.45.240005","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ALLERGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Metal implant allergy: A retrospective cohort analysis at a university allergy practice.
Background: Concern of metal sensitization in pre- and postsurgical evaluation is growing, with the recent guidelines remaining the criterion standard for consideration of patch testing. Information remains scarce on surgical screening in the groups of patients who reported a history of metal sensitivity versus those with no reported history. Objective: The objective of this study was to assess the utility of patch testing in surgical candidates based on reported metal allergy history. The secondary objective was to evaluate the utility and outcomes in postsurgical patch testing. Methods: Nine hundred and thirty-one patient charts of patients with the diagnosis of "contact dermatitis" who underwent an evaluation at a single allergy clinic site between January 2013 and December 2022 were identified and reviewed as part of a retrospective chart review study. Patients were included in subgroups based on the time of patch testing and history of reported metal allergy. Results: In all, 67 patients underwent patch testing, 10 (14.9%) of whom were surgical candidates without a history of metal sensitivity, 31 (46.2%) of whom were surgical candidates with a history of metal sensitivity, and 26 (38.8%) of whom were postsurgical patients. Twenty-nine (43.3%) of patients had positive patch testing results, with only one (10%) in the presurgical group, 17 (54.8%) in the presurgical with a history of metal sensitivity, and 11 (42.3%) in the postsurgical group. Zero patients in our cohort without metal sensitivity who were undergoing the Nuss procedure had positive reactions on patch testing, whereas two of four (50%) with reported metal sensitivity who were undergoing the Nuss procedure had positive relevant metal reactions. Conclusion: Ambiguity in the utility of patch testing for surgical decision making remains, despite common utilization. Recent guidelines along with coordination of care among the surgeon, allergist, and patient remains the criterion standard of care.
期刊介绍:
Allergy & Asthma Proceedings is a peer reviewed publication dedicated to distributing timely scientific research regarding advancements in the knowledge and practice of allergy, asthma and immunology. Its primary readership consists of allergists and pulmonologists. The goal of the Proceedings is to publish articles with a predominantly clinical focus which directly impact quality of care for patients with allergic disease and asthma. Featured topics include asthma, rhinitis, sinusitis, food allergies, allergic skin diseases, diagnostic techniques, allergens, and treatment modalities. Published material includes peer-reviewed original research, clinical trials and review articles.