Characterization of metallic piercings that caused adverse reactions during use
This investigation characterizes five surgical stainless steel piercings and one niobium piercing that caused adverse reactions during use, culminating with the removal of the jewelry. Chemical composition shows that none of the materials are in accordance with ISO (International Organization for Standardization) standards for surgical implant materials. Additionally, none of the stainless steel piercings passed the pitting-resistance criterion of ISO 5832-1, which implies that %Cr + 3.3 × %Mo >26. Under microscopic examination, most of the jewelry revealed the intense presence of linear irregularities on the surface. The lack of resistance to pitting corrosion associated with the poor surface finishing of the stainless steel jewelry may induce localized corrosion, promoting the release of cytotoxic metallic ions (such as Cr, Ni, and Mo) in the local tissue, which can promote several types of adverse effects in the human body, including allergic reactions. The adverse reaction to the niobium jewelry could not be directly associated with the liberation of niobium ions or the residual presence of cytotoxic elements such as Co, Ni, Mo, and Cr. The poor surface finish of the niobium jewelry seems to be the only variable of the material that may promote adverse reactions.
Keywordsadverse reactions body piercing characterization
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.D.E. Cohen, et al: “American Academy of Dermatology’s Position Paper on Latex Allergy,”J. Amer. Acad. Derm., July 1998, pp. 98–106.Google Scholar
- 7.Anon: inImplants for Surgery — Metallic Materials — Parts 1–12, International Organization for Standardization, ISO 5832-1 to ISO 5832-12, Geneve.Google Scholar
- 8.Anon: Medical Devices; Emergency Medical Services, inAnnual Book of ASTM Standards, vol. 13.01, section 13, ASTM, W. Conshohocken, PA, 1992.Google Scholar
- 9.Anon: inStandard Practice for Surface Preparation and Marking of Metallic Surgical Implants, ASTM F86-91, ASTM, W. Conshohocken, PA, 1992.Google Scholar
- 10.Anon: inImplants for Surgery — Orthopaedic Joint Prostheses Basic Requirements, International Organization for Standardization, ISO 5839, Geneve.Google Scholar
- 11.R.M. Davison: Corrosion of Stainless Steels,Corrosion, vol. 13,Metals Handbook, 9th ed., ASM International, 1987, pp. 547–65.Google Scholar
- 12.A.C. Fraker: Corrosion of Metallic Implants and Prosthetic Devices,Corrosion, vol. 13,Metals Handbook, 9th ed., ASM International, 1987, pp. 1324–35.Google Scholar
- 13.C.L. Faust: Electropolishing,Heat Treating, Cleaning and Finishing, vol. 2,Metals Handbook, 8th ed., American Society for Metals, 1964, pp. 484–8.Google Scholar
- 17.S.L.C. Wu, doctor of the Dermatology Clinic at Hospital do Servidor Público Municipal de São Paulo and member of the Brazilian Society for Dermatology; private communication, 2002.Google Scholar
- 18.J.A. Disegi and L. Eschbach: “Stainless Steel in Bone Surgery,”Injury, 2000,31, SD2–6.Google Scholar
- 21.I. Peate: “Body Piercing: Could You Answer Your Patient’s Queries?”Brit. J. Nurs., 2000,9, p. 20.Google Scholar
- 22.Anon: inStandard Practice for Implantable Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) Polymer Fabricated in Sheet, Tube, and Rod Shapes, ASTM F754-88, ASTM, W. Conshohocken, PA, 1992.Google Scholar