You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Letter
Correspondence on “Nickels and tines: the myth of nickel allergy in intracranial stents” by Vanent et al
  1. Anastasios Apostolos1,
  2. Stamatios Gregoriou2,
  3. Maria Drakopoulou1,
  4. Georgios Trantalis1,
  5. Georgios Tsivgoulis3,
  6. Costas Tsioufis1,
  7. Konstantinos Toutouzas1
  1. 1 First Department of Cardiology, Hippokration General Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens School of Medicine, Athens, Greece
  2. 2 First Department of Dermatology-Venereology, Andreas Sygros Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens School of Medicine, Athens, Attica, Greece
  3. 3 Second Department of Neurology, “Attikon” Hospital, School of Medicine, University of Athens, Athens, Greece
  1. Correspondence to Dr Anastasios Apostolos, First Department of Cardiology, Hippokration General Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens School of Medicine, Athens 115 27, Greece; anastasisapostolos{at}gmail.com

https://doi.org/10.1136/neurintsurg-2022-018823

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Dear Editor,

    Nickel hypersensitivity remains a hot issue, as endovascular interventions and implantation of devices gain more ground. The extent and the real incidence of nickel allergy secondary to device placement remain under investigation.1 A wide variety of clinical signs and symptoms have been described, depending on the area of device implantation.1 2 A recent meta-analysis supported that adverse events were increased in nickel-allergic patients after endovascular interventions.3 Against this context, we read with great interest the article by Vanent et al on nickel allergy in intracranial stents.4 We would like to congratulate the authors for getting involved in such an interesting topic; however, we have some concerns about their study.

    First, an in vitro observation cannot be considered as adequate for ruling out the existence of nickel hypersensitivity syndrome after intracranial stenting. We acknowledge that in the experiment nickel release was not observed, but it was performed under …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors All authors contributed to the conceptualization, manuscript preparation and revision of the specific manuscript.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

    • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.

    Linked Articles