Endovascular Treatment of Cerebrovascular Lesions Using Nickel- or Nitinol-Containing Devices in Patients with Nickel Allergies

References

1. 1.↵
   1. Thyssen JP,
   2. Menne T

   . Metal allergy: a review on exposures, penetration, genetics, prevalence, and clinical implications. Chem Res Toxicol 2010;23:309–18 doi:10.1021/tx9002726 pmid:19831422

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
2. 2.↵
   1. Thyssen JP,
   2. Linneberg A,
   3. Menne T, et al

   . The epidemiology of contact allergy in the general population–prevalence and main findings. Contact Dermatitis 2007;57:287–99 doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.2007.01220.x pmid:17937743

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
3. 3.↵
   1. Marcos-Gonzalez A,
   2. Spoerl D,
   3. Darbellay B, et al

   . Hypersensitivity to an intracerebral stent and symptomatic cerebral lesions: a possible link? J Dermatol 2017;44:1187–88 doi:10.1111/1346-8138.13663 pmid:27786381

   CrossRefPubMed
4. 4.↵
   1. Park HS,
   2. Nakagawa I,
   3. Yokoyama S, et al

   . Nickel-associated delayed multiple white matter lesions after stent-assisted coil embolization of intracranial unruptured aneurysm. J Neurointerv Surg 2018;10:e1 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2017-013005.rep pmid:28235953

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
5. 5.↵
   1. Tonetti DA,
   2. Perez JL,
   3. Ozpinar A, et al

   . Use of pipeline endovascular device in patients with nickel allergies. World Neurosurg 2018;120:349–51 doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2018.09.041 pmid:30240853

   CrossRefPubMed
6. 6.↵
   1. Ulus S,
   2. Yakupoğlu A,
   3. Kararslan E, et al

   . Reversible intracranial parenchymal changes in MRI after MCA aneurysm treatment with stent-assisted coiling technique: possible nickel allergy. Neuroradiology 2012;54:897–99 doi:10.1007/s00234-012-1048-2 pmid:22653481

   CrossRefPubMed
7. 7.↵
   1. Wallace AN,
   2. Delgado Almandoz JE,
   3. Kayan Y, et al

   . Pipeline treatment of intracranial aneurysms is safe and effective in patients with cutaneous metal allergy. World Neurosurg 2019;123:e180–85 doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2018.11.115 pmid:30476671

   CrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   1. Koster R,
   2. Vieluf D,
   3. Kiehn M, et al

   . Nickel and molybdenum contact allergies in patients with coronary in-stent restenosis. Lancet 2000;356:1895–97 doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(00)03262-1 pmid:11130387

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
9. 9.↵
   1. Aliağaoğlu C,
   2. Turan H,
   3. Erden I, et al

   . Relation of nickel allergy with in-stent restenosis in patients treated with cobalt chromium stents. Ann Dermatol 2012;24:426–29 doi:10.5021/ad.2012.24.4.426 pmid:23197908

   CrossRefPubMed
10. 10.↵
    1. Iijima R,
    2. Ikari Y,
    3. Amiya E, et al

    . The impact of metallic allergy on stent implantation: metal allergy and recurrence of in-stent restenosis. Int J Cardiol 2005;104:319–25 doi:10.1016/j.ijcard.2004.12.034 pmid:16186063

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
11. 11.↵
    1. Norgaz T,
    2. Hobikoglu G,
    3. Serdar ZA, et al

    . Is there a link between nickel allergy and coronary stent restenosis? Tohoku J Exp Med 2005;206:243–46 doi:10.1620/tjem.206.243 pmid:15942152

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
12. 12.↵
    1. Romero-Brufau S,
    2. Best PJ,
    3. Holmes DR, Jr., et al

    . Outcomes after coronary stent implantation in patients with metal allergy. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2012;5:220–26 doi:10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.111.966614 pmid:22456027

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
13. 13.↵
    1. Guéroult AM,
    2. Al-Balah A,
    3. Davies AH, et al

    . Nickel hypersensitivity and endovascular devices: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Heart 2022;108:1707–15 doi:10.1136/heartjnl-2021-319940 pmid:34702756

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
14. 14.↵
    1. Fujii S,
    2. Fujita K,
    3. Yamaoka H, et al

    . Refractory in-stent stenosis after flow diverter stenting associated with delayed cobalt allergic reaction. J Neurointerv Surg 2022;14:e4 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2021-017948 pmid:34433645

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
15. 15.↵
    1. Tsang AC,
    2. Nicholson P,
    3. Pereira VM

    . Nickel-related adverse reactions in the treatment of cerebral aneurysms: a literature review. World Neurosurg 2018;115:147–53 doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2018.04.073 pmid:29684517

    CrossRefPubMed
16. 16.↵
    1. Shotar E,
    2. Law-Ye B,
    3. Baronnet-Chauvet F, et al

    . Non-ischemic cerebral enhancing lesions secondary to endovascular aneurysm therapy: nickel allergy or foreign body reaction? Case series and review of the literature. Neuroradiology 2016;58:877–85 doi:10.1007/s00234-016-1699-5 pmid:27216205

    CrossRefPubMed
17. 17.↵
    1. Haddad SF,
    2. Helm MM,
    3. Meath B, et al

    . Exploring the incidence, implications, and relevance of metal allergy to orthopaedic surgeons. J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev 2019;3:e023 doi:10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-19-00023 pmid:31334475

    CrossRefPubMed
18. 18.↵
    1. King L Jr.,
    2. Fransway A,
    3. Adkins RB

    . Chronic urticaria due to surgical clips. N Engl J Med 1993;329:1583–84 doi:10.1056/NEJM199311183292121 pmid:8413491

    CrossRefPubMed
19. 19.↵
    1. Apostolos A,
    2. Gregoriou S,
    3. Drakopoulou M, et al

    . Correspondence on “Nickels and tines: the myth of nickel allergy in intracranial stents” by Vanent et al. J Neurointerv Surg 2022;14:1286–87 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2022-018823 pmid:236768

    FREE Full Text
20. 20.↵
    1. Lobotesis K,
    2. Mahady K,
    3. Ganesalingam J, et al

    . Coiling-associated delayed cerebral hypersensitivity: is nickel the link? Neurology 2015;84:97–99 doi:10.1212/WNL.0000000000001106 pmid:25428692

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
21. 21.↵
    1. Oh SW,
    2. Shin NY,
    3. Lee HJ, et al

    . Delayed enhancing lesions after coil embolization of aneurysms: clinical experience and benchtop analyses. J Neurointerv Surg 2017;9:1243–47 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2016-012833 pmid:28062804

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
22. 22.↵
    1. Jeswani S,
    2. Alexander MJ

    . Nickel allergy: a reason for concern? J Neurointerv Surg 2011;3:2–4 doi:10.1136/jnis.2010.003657 pmid:21990778

    FREE Full Text
23. 23.↵
    1. Vanent KN,
    2. Federico EM,
    3. Bass DI, et al

    . Nickels and tines: the myth of nickel allergy in intracranial stents. J Neurointerv Surg 2022;14:1244–47 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2021-018365 pmid:34987071

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
24. 24.↵
    1. Phillips TJ,
    2. Wenderoth JD,
    3. Phatouros CC, et al

    . Safety of the Pipeline embolization device in treatment of posterior circulation aneurysms. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2012;33:1225–31 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A3166 pmid:22678845

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
25. 25.↵
    1. Feng MT,
    2. Wen WL,
    3. Feng ZZ, et al

    . Endovascular embolization of intracranial aneurysms: to use stent(s) or not? Systematic review and meta-analysis. World Neurosurg 2016;93:271–78 doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2016.06.014 pmid:27312391

    CrossRefPubMed
26. 26.↵
    1. Mocco J,
    2. Fargen KM,
    3. Albuquerque FC, et al

    . Delayed thrombosis or stenosis following Enterprise-assisted stent-coiling: is it safe? Midterm results of the interstate collaboration of Enterprise stent coiling. Neurosurgery 2011;69:908–13; discussion 913–14 doi:10.1227/NEU.0b013e318228490c pmid:21670718

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
27. 27.↵
    1. Guimaraens L,
    2. Vivas E,
    3. Saldana J, et al

    . Efficacy and safety of the dual-layer flow-diverting stent (FRED) for the treatment of intracranial aneurysms. J Neurointerv Surg 2020;12:521–25 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2019-015371 pmid:31653756

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
28. 28.↵
    1. Levitt MR,
    2. Vanent KN,
    3. Federico EM, et al

    . Response to: Correspondence on “Nickels and tines: the myth of nickel allergy in intracranial stents” by Apostolos et al. J Neurointerv Surg 2022;14:1287–88 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2022-018859 pmid:35236769

    FREE Full Text