Abstract
Objectives
The aim of the study was the assessment of local tolerance to nickel implants during 9 months observation in guinea pigs sensitized to nickel before implantation and non-sensitized ones.
Materials and Methods
Three groups of guinea pigs were included in the study: 10 sensitized to nickel by the guinea pig maximization test; 10 previously non-sensitized and 10 in control group. In 20 animals (except control group) the nickel implants were inserted in the muscle of the back. After 9 months of observation, the animals were patch-tested with 5% nickel sulfate. Also percentage of eosinophils in peripheral blood was examined. Next, the tissue surrounding the implant and skin from the area of patch tests were collected for the histological examination.
Results
In 70% of previously sensitized animals, the patch test confirmed the sensitivity to nickel. In 60% of previously non-sensitized animals, a positive reaction to nickel occurred. The results of patch tests in control group were negative. Percentage of eosinophils in peripheral blood was fourfold higher in animals sensitized to nickel than in control group. In histological examination, in the tissue surrounding the implant a dissimilarity concerning the intensity of cellular infiltration was observed between animals previously allergic and non-allergic to nickel. In the 2 of 10 previously sensitized guinea pigs quite severe inflammatory reactions in the inside of connective tissue capsule were noted which may indicate a local allergic reaction. The histological images of skin collected from the positive patch test site corresponded with the typical allergic contact dermatitis.
Conclusions
Nickel implants may cause primary sensitization to nickel. The nature of the histological changes in the tissues around the implants in guinea pigs sensitized to nickel may correspond to an allergic reaction. The examination of percentage of eosinophils in blood of guinea pigs may be useful in assessing the allergenic activity of metal alloys containing nickel.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Villar RN. Failed hip replacements. Br Med J 1992;304:3–4.
Carlsson A, Moller H. Implantation of orthopaedic devices in patients with metal allergy. Act Derm Venereol 1989;69:62–66.
Niki Y, Matsumoto H, Otani T, Yatabe T, Kondo M, Yoshimine F, et al. Screening for symptomatic metal sensitivity: a prospective study of 92 patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty. Biomaterials 2006;26:1019–1026.
Basko-Plluska JL, Thyssen JP, Schalock PC. Cutaneous and systemic hypersensitivity reactions to metallic implants. Dermatitis 2011;22:65–79.
316/316L stainless steel. Product data sheet [cited 2011 December 15]. Available on URL: http://www.aksteel.com/PDF/markets_products/stainless/austenitic/316_316L_Data_Sheet.pdf.
Magnusson B, Kligman AM. The Identifications of contact allergens by animal assay. The guinea pig maximization test. J Invest Dermatol 1969;52:268–276.
Polish Standard PN-EN 30996-6. Biological evaluation of medical devices. Tests for local effects after implantation. Warszawa: Polish Committee for Standardization; 2000 [in Polish].
Biological evaluation of medical devices. Part 6: Tests for local effects after implantation. ISO 10993-6:1994. Arlington: Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation; 2007.
Brylińska J, Kwiatkowska J, editors. Laboratory animals — methods of farming and experiments. Kraków: Towarzystwo Autorów i Wydawców Prac Naukowych Uniwersitatis; 1996 [in Polish].
Thyssen JP, Linneberg A, Menné T, Duus Johansen J. The epidemiology of contact allergy in the general population — prevalence and main findings. Contact Dermatitis 2007;57:287–299.
Basko-Pluska, JL, Thyssen JP, Schalock PC. Cutaneous and systemic hypersensitivity reactions to metallic implant — an update. Dermatitis 2011;22:65–79.
Schalock PC, Menné T, Johansen JD, Taylor JS, Maibach HI, Lidén K, et al. Hypersensitivity reactions to metallic implants — diagnostic algorithm and suggested patch test series for clinical use. Contact Dermatitis 2012;66:4–19.
Merritt K, Brown SA. Tissue reaction and metal sensitivity. An animal study. Acta Orthop Scand 1980;51:403–411.
Lewin J, Lindgren JU, Wahlberg JE. Apparent absence of local response to bone screws in guinea pigs with contact sensitivity. J Orthop Res 1987;5:604–608.
Basketter DA, Andersen KE, Linden K, Van Lovergen H, Boman A, Bimber I, et al. Evaluation of the skin sensitizing potency of chemicals by using the existing methods and considerations of relevance for elicitation. Contact Dermatitis 2005;52:39–43.
Tomaki M, Zhao LL, Lundahl J, Sjöstrand M, Jordana M, Lindén A, et al. Eosinophilopoiesis in a murine model of allergic airway eosinophilia: involvement of bone marrow IL-5 and IL-5 receptor α. J Immunol 2000;165:4040–4050.
Skrindo I, Scheel C, Johansen FE, Jahnsen FL. Experimentally induced accumulation of Foxp3+T cells in upper airway allergy. Clin Exp Allergy 2011;41(7):954–962.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The study was conducted in 2009 and 2010 as part of the realization of the Nofer Institute of Occupational Medicine project entitled “Experimental assessment of local tolerance of nickel implants in guinea-pigs sensitized and non-sensitized to nickel”, financed with the resources granted by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education. The subject manager: Beata Kręcisz, MD, PhD.
About this article
Cite this article
Kręcisz, B., Kieć-Świerczyńska, M., Piasecka-Zelga, J. et al. Tissue reaction to the nickel implants in the guinea pigs. IJOMEH 25, 251–257 (2012). https://doi.org/10.2478/S13382-012-0028-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/S13382-012-0028-4