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.

2-Octyl cyanoacrylate, a hidden allergen, a common cause of postsurgical allergic contact dermatitis.

Background: 2-Octyl cyanoacrylate, a topical adhesive used for wound closure, is becoming a common cause for rashes in postsurgical patients. There is an increased number of cases of postsurgical contact dermatitis attributable to 2-octyl cyanoacrylate. Localized skin reactions to 2-octyl cyanoacrylate have been described in different case reports, but there are limited case reports of diffuse cutaneous allergic reactions. Objective: The aim of the study was to review our experience in patch testing with cyanoacrylates. Methods: We reported five cases of allergic contact dermatitis to 2-octyl cyanoacrylate, confirmed by a patch test. All the patients experienced a skin reaction a few days after surgery. The patients described an erythematous pruritic rash initially localized over the incision and that subsequently spread to surrounding areas. Two of the five patients developed a more widespread rash, which required a longer duration of systemic steroids. 2-Octyl cyanoacrylate remains an agent of low diagnostic suspicion as the possible cause of contact dermatitis after a surgical procedure. Results: All the patients, but one had a positive reaction to 2-octyl cyanoacrylate on PT. Four had a positive PT result, with one patient having a positive scratch test after a negative PT result. Testing on abraded skin further increased yield. Conclusion: Postsurgical patients should be evaluated by using a patch test if there is a clinical picture suggestive of contact dermatitis.

A literature review of the evidence that a 12% improvement in FEV1 is an appropriate cut-off for children.

INTRODUCTION: A well-performed spirometry, using a change in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV(1)) after albuterol, is commonly used to support the likelihood of an asthma diagnosis. The current standard, accepted by the 2007 National Heart Lung and Blood Institute Asthma Expert Panel Report-3 (EPR-3) guidelines, is a 12% improvement in the FEV(1) after a bronchodilator. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine whether existing studies support or refute using a 12% improvement as a significant change in FEV(1) in children and adolescents. DATA SOURCES: We reviewed the literature of children and adolescents using Medline searches to discover pertinent population studies and comparative studies that included FEV(1) measurements. RESULT: The majority of the discovered studies suggest a less stringent improvement in FEV(1) in children might be applicable. CONCLUSION: Supported by the published literature, we suggest an alternative interpretive strategy of expressing the results of a spirometry measurement when a diagnosis of asthma in a child is being considered using a bronchodilator response.