Type IV Cell-Mediated Hypersensitivity Reaction Caused by Titanium Implant Following Medial Displacement Calcaneal Osteotomy and First Metatarsal-Cuneiform Arthrodesis

Stephen J. Kriger 1Second Year Podiatric Medical Student, CSPM at Samuel Merritt University, Oakland, CA

Search for other papers by Stephen J. Kriger in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 BA
,
Shontal A. Behan 1Second Year Podiatric Medical Student, CSPM at Samuel Merritt University, Oakland, CA

Search for other papers by Shontal A. Behan in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 BS
,
Parth J. Bhakta 1Second Year Podiatric Medical Student, CSPM at Samuel Merritt University, Oakland, CA

Search for other papers by Parth J. Bhakta in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 BS
,
Nicholas G. Bruning 1Second Year Podiatric Medical Student, CSPM at Samuel Merritt University, Oakland, CA

Search for other papers by Nicholas G. Bruning in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 BS
,
Brennan A. Menninger 1Second Year Podiatric Medical Student, CSPM at Samuel Merritt University, Oakland, CA

Search for other papers by Brennan A. Menninger in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 BS
, and
Mark C. Razzante 2Assistant Professor, Department of Podiatric Surgery, CSPM at Samuel Merritt University, Oakland, CA

Search for other papers by Mark C. Razzante in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DPM, MA, AACFAS
Restricted access

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Due to its inert character and desired biocompatibility, titanium (Ti) implants have been universally accepted as safer alternatives to the previous conventional orthopedic hardware implants. However, a recent emergence of Type IV hypersensitivity reactions to Ti have displayed symptoms that include eczema, contact dermatitis, prolonged fever, sterile osteomyelitis, and impaired fracture and wound healing. The following case presents a patient with postoperative incision dehiscence and devascularization of cortical surfaces in contact with Ti hardware after undergoing a medial displacement calcaneal osteotomy and a first metatarsal-cuneiform arthrodesis. To our knowledge, this is the only reported case of an allergic reaction to a Ti implant in the foot or ankle in the United States.

METHODS: Diagnostic tools to confirm a Ti hypersensitivity reaction include a patch test and lymphocyte transformation test. The lymphocyte transformation test can be utilized if a false negative patch test is suspected. Potential treatment options include immunosuppressants, removal or substitution of the Ti hardware, and external fixation.

RESULTS: In this case, the patient's allergy to Ti was confirmed with a patch test, and all hardware was subsequently removed with no other complications.

CONCLUSIONS: A hypersensitivity reaction to Ti should remain a differential diagnosis for a patient presenting with symptoms such as prolonged fever, contact dermatitis, sterile osteomyelitis, and impaired wound healing. Preoperative diagnostic tools, such as the patch test, can be utilized to prevent allergic reactions from occurring. Treatments for Ti hypersensitivity should be tailored to fit the patient's needs and can include removal or substitution of the Ti hardware, external fixation, and immunosuppressants.