Background and purpose — The most frequent cause of arthroplasty failure is aseptic loosening—often induced by particles. Abrasion material triggers inflammatory reactions with lymphocytic infiltration and the formation of synovial-like interface membranes (SLIM) in the bone–implant interface. We analyzed CD3 quantities in SLIM depending on articulating materials and possible influences of proven material allergies on CD3 quantities.Patients and methods — 222 SLIM probes were obtained from revision surgeries of loosened hip and knee arthroplasties. SLIM cases were categorized according to the SLIM-consensus classification and to the particle algorithm. The CD3 quantities were analyzed immunohistochemically, quantified, and correlated to the particle types.Results — Metal–metal pairings showed the highest CD3 quantities (mean 1,367 counted cells). CD3 quantities of metal–polyethylene (mean 243), ceramic–polyethylene (mean 182), and ceramic–ceramic pairings (mean 124) were significantly smaller. Patients with contact allergy to implant materials had high but not statistically significantly higher CD3 quantities than patients without allergies. For objective assessment of the CD3 response as result of a pronounced inflammatory reaction with high lymphocytosis (adverse reaction), a defined CD3 quantity per high power field was established, the “CD3 focus score” (447 cells/0.3 mm2, sensitivity 0.92; specificity 0.90; positive predictive value 0.71; negative predictive value 0.98).Interpretation — The high CD3 quantities for metal–metal pairings may be interpreted as substrate for previously described adverse reactions that cause severe peri-implant tissue destruction and SLIM formation. It remains unclear whether the low CD3 quantities with only slight differences in the various non-metal–metal pairings and documented contact allergies to implant materials have a direct pathogenetic relevance.
For histopathological diagnosis a particle score for synovitis and SLIM is recommended to evaluate (1) the predominant type of prothetic wear debris with differentiation between microparticles, and macroparticles, (2) the presence of non-prosthesis material particles and (3) the quantification of particle-association necrosis and lymphocytosis. An open, continuously updated web-based particle algorithm would be helpful to address the issue of particle heterogeneity and include all new particle materials generated in a rapidly changing field.
Increasing classes of joint implants and the combination of materials results in increased and wear-associated pathologies. According to the revised consensus classification, the following types can be recognized at conventional histological examination: Type I, particle-induced type; Type II, infection type; Type III, combination type; Type IV, indifferent type; Type V arthrofibrotic type; Type VI, allergic/immunological/toxic adverse reactions and Type VII, bone pathologies. Wear particles are histopathologically characterized according to the Krenn particle algorithm which focuses on a descriptive identification of wear particles and the differentiation of other nonwear-related particles. Type VII is considered histologically when there is evidence of a perivascular/interstitial lymphocytic CD20- and CD3-positive infiltrate, presence of mast cells and eosinophils, and tissue necrosis/infarction associated with implant wear material. Since wear particle-induced toxicity cannot be differentiated with certainty from hypersensitivity/allergic reaction on histological examination, immunological-allergological and clinical data should be used as supplementary criteria for the differential diagnosis. Tissue sampling should be performed from periprosthetic soft tissue with location mapping and when feasible also from bone tissue. Additional information regarding the type of implant and clinical, radiological, immunological, and microbiology data should be available to the pathologist. Further immunohistochemical studies are recommended in the following settings: infection (CD15, CD20, CD68); prosthesis-associated arthrofibrosis (β‑catenin); allergic/immunologic/toxic adverse reactions (CD20, CD3, CD4, CD8, CD117 and for T‑cell characterization T‑bet, GATA-3, and FOXP3).
Hintergrund: Feedback von Patienten über erlebte Versorgungsaspekte erfolgt auch in der Rehabilitation inzwischen zunehmend online, beispielsweise auf Bewertungsportalen. Daher soll untersucht werden, welche von Rehabilitanden auf der für Reha-Kliniken führenden Bewertungsplattform Klinikbewertungen.de veröffentlichten Versorgungsaspekte mit der Weiterempfehlung einer Rehaklinik und welche negativen Aspekte mit der Nicht-Weiterempfehlung assoziiert sind. Methode: Eingeschlossen wurden Reha-Kliniken der Rentenversicherung Bund und federführend von ihr belegte Kliniken. Mit einem Mixed-Methods-Ansatz wurden aus acht Reha-Indikationsgruppen nach Zufriedenheitsstufen stratifizierte freitextliche Erfahrungsberichte von Rehabilitanden inhaltsanalytisch ausgewertet. Der Zusammenhang zwischen positiven (negativen) Aussagen mit der (Nicht-)Weiterempfehlung wurde in der jeweiligen Reha-Indikationsgruppe untersucht. Ergebnisse: Die Inhaltsanalyse von 911 Erfahrungsberichten ergab 20 thematische Kategorien. Der von Rehabilitanden wahrgenommene ,,Reha-Erfolg'' war am häufigsten mit der Weiterempfehlung bzw. Nicht-Weiterempfehlung signifikant assoziiert. In fünf QS-Vergleichsgruppen war das Thema ,,Verpflegung'' assoziiert. In allen QS-Vergleichsgruppen war mindestens ein prozessorientiertes Rehabilitationsthema assoziiert:
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.