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.

Impact of Protocol Utilizing Water-Soluble Contrast for Adhesive Small Bowel Obstruction.

INTRODUCTION: Adhesive small bowel obstruction (ASBO) has classically been managed with nasogastric tube decompression and watchful waiting. Our group developed an evidence-based protocol to manage ASBO utilizing a water-soluble contrast (WSC) agent. We hypothesized the protocol would decrease the length of stay (LOS) for patients admitted with ASBO along with the time interval from admission to surgery. METHOD: From 2010 to 2018, a retrospective review was performed, including all patients admitted with a diagnosis of ASBO. These patients were divided into two groups: the preprotocol group included years 2010-2013 and the postprotocol group included years 2015-2018. A Student t-test and a two-proportion z-test were used for statistical analysis. RESULT: We captured 767 patients; 296 in the preprotocol group and 471 in the postprotocol group. We found a significant decrease in overall LOS between the preprotocol and postprotocol groups (6.56 d versus 4.08 d; P < 0.001) along with decreases in LOS for patients managed nonoperatively (5.36 d versus 3.42 d; P < 0.001) and operatively (16.09 d versus 9.47 d; P < 0.001). Time interval from admission to the operation was significantly decreased in the postprotocol group (3.79 d versus 2.10 d; P < 0.050). We identified a trend toward decreased rates of bowel ischemia and resections with our protocol. CONCLUSIONS: These results reaffirm previous reports of WSC's impact on overall LOS in ASBO while showing a similar impact on both operative and nonoperative groups. The decreased time interval between admission and operation may impact the incidence of bowel ischemia and resections.