ABSTRACT
The rising number of medical publications makes it difficult to keep up-to-date on scientific knowledge. In recent years, reviews in the form of narrative or systematic publications and meta-analyses have increased. These can only be interpreted and evaluated if the reader understands the techniques used. This review article describes the differences between narrative and systematic reviews, together with the characteristics of meta-analysis, and discusses their interpretation. The concept of systematic reviews and meta-analysis includes a systematic literature search and summary, together with an appraisal of the quality of the publications. Systematic reviews are often considered to be original studies due to their structure and ability to reduce bias.
Subject(s)
Meta-Analysis as Topic , Systematic Reviews as TopicABSTRACT
PURPOSE: The contact allergens nickel, cobalt, and chromium are often discussed as possible triggers of allergic reactions to orthopedic implants. Additionally, acrylates and polymerization additives in bone cement (e.g., benzoyl peroxide (BPO)) have been implicated as triggers of eczema, wound healing disorders, and aseptic implant loosening. We report about six patients with aseptic loosening after total knee arthroplasty (TKA), who underwent revision surgery after testing positive for BPO hypersensitivity. METHODS: After clarification of possible other causes of implant failure, epicutaneous testing had been performed and the implants were replaced in a two-stage procedure with cementless, diaphyseal anchoring, hypoallergenic (TiNb-coated) revision endoprostheses. RESULTS: Epicutaneous testing revealed a BPO allergy in all six patients and an additional nickel allergy in three of the six patients. There was no histopathological or microbiological evidence for a periprosthetic infection. The clinical follow-up showed a low level of pain with good function, a stable knee joint, and proper implant position. The Knee Society Score (KSS) with its subscales Knee Score and Functional Score improved post-operatively from 43 to 70 points and from 47.5 to 68.3 points, respectively. Two implant-specific complications occurred: femoral stress shielding two years post-operatively with no further need for action and aseptic loosening of the tibial stem with the need of revision three years post-operatively. CONCLUSIONS: The regression of complaints after replacement with cementless and nickel-free revision implants suggests allergic implant intolerance. Implantation of a cementless, hypoallergenic endoprosthesis might, therefore, be a surgical treatment strategy in patients with evidence of allergies.
