The Journal of arthroplasty · 2026
The Otto Aufranc Award: Iodine-Containing Products Are Safe in Allergy-Labeled Patients Undergoing Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Prospective Observational Study.
СтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Samineni Aneesh V, Cruz-Ossa Natalia, Reddy Gireesh B, McNamara Colin A, Hernandez Victor H, D'Apuzzo Michele R
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Povidone-iodine (PVP-I) and iodophor-impregnated drapes are essential antiseptic measures for total joint arthroplasty (TJA). However, many surgical settings may prevent surgeons from using iodine-containing products when a patient has a documented allergy, even if the cross-reactivity is unproven or based on distant self-reported history. As iodine has been a well-accepted measure to reduce periprosthetic joint infections and surgical site infection, this study sought to prospectively evaluate the safety of using iodine-containing products (iodophors) in iodine allergy labeled patients undergoing TJA.
METHODS: In this prospective observational study, patients with documented iodine allergy undergoing primary TJA from July 2024 to October 2025 were enrolled. Patients completed a preoperative questionnaire including the source, duration, and type of allergic reaction. The standard-of-care operative workflow, including PVP-I nasal decolonization, use of iodophor-impregnated adhesive drape, and intraoperative lavage with diluted PVP-I was followed without deviation from protocol. The primary end point was any perioperative allergic reaction throughout the stay.
RESULTS: Of the 1,211 primary TJA performed during this time, there were 37 (3.1%) iodine allergy labeled patients. There were five (13.5%) patients who had skin test-confirmed allergies, 25 (67.6%) patients who were allergic to contrast media, four (10.8%) patients who were allergic to betadine, and five (13.5%) patients who had a concurrent shellfish allergy. The mean reported allergy duration was 27.9 years. Questionnaire results showed patients reporting reactions of nausea and vomiting (78.4%), mild itching (83.8%), rash (29.9%), severe itching (62.2%), wheezing (78.4%), difficulty breathing (59.5%), and swelling (89.2%). Most patients (70%) reported more than one reaction. However, the enrolled patients in this study had no allergic reactions to the iodophors used in the perioperative period.
CONCLUSIONS: Iodophors are safe in iodine-allergic patients undergoing TJA. No allergic reactions were observed in this study. These findings challenge routine iodophor avoidance, supporting standardized antiseptic protocols to minimize periprosthetic joint infection.
METHODS: In this prospective observational study, patients with documented iodine allergy undergoing primary TJA from July 2024 to October 2025 were enrolled. Patients completed a preoperative questionnaire including the source, duration, and type of allergic reaction. The standard-of-care operative workflow, including PVP-I nasal decolonization, use of iodophor-impregnated adhesive drape, and intraoperative lavage with diluted PVP-I was followed without deviation from protocol. The primary end point was any perioperative allergic reaction throughout the stay.
RESULTS: Of the 1,211 primary TJA performed during this time, there were 37 (3.1%) iodine allergy labeled patients. There were five (13.5%) patients who had skin test-confirmed allergies, 25 (67.6%) patients who were allergic to contrast media, four (10.8%) patients who were allergic to betadine, and five (13.5%) patients who had a concurrent shellfish allergy. The mean reported allergy duration was 27.9 years. Questionnaire results showed patients reporting reactions of nausea and vomiting (78.4%), mild itching (83.8%), rash (29.9%), severe itching (62.2%), wheezing (78.4%), difficulty breathing (59.5%), and swelling (89.2%). Most patients (70%) reported more than one reaction. However, the enrolled patients in this study had no allergic reactions to the iodophors used in the perioperative period.
CONCLUSIONS: Iodophors are safe in iodine-allergic patients undergoing TJA. No allergic reactions were observed in this study. These findings challenge routine iodophor avoidance, supporting standardized antiseptic protocols to minimize periprosthetic joint infection.