Detection of In Vivo Foot and Ankle Implants by Walkthrough Metal Detectors.
BACKGROUND
Heightened security concerns have made metal detectors a standard security measure in many locations. While prior studies have investigated the detection rates of various hip and knee implants, none have looked specifically at the detection of foot and ankle implants in an in vivo model. Our goals were to identify which commonly used foot and ankle implants would be detected by walkthrough metal detectors both in vivo and ex vivo.


METHODS
Over a 7-month period, 153 weightbearing patients with foot and ankle hardware were recruited to walk through a standard airport metal detector at 3 different program settings (buildings, airports, and airports enhanced) with a base sensitivity of 165 (arbitrary units), as currently used by the Transportation Security Administration. The number of implants, location and type, as well as the presence of concomitant hardware outside of the foot and ankle were recorded. To determine the detection rate of common foot and ankle implants ex vivo, different hardware sets were walked through the detector at all 3 program settings.


RESULTS
Seventeen patients were found to have detectable hardware at the buildings, airports, and airports enhanced settings. An additional 3 patients had hardware only detected at the airports enhanced setting. All 20 of these patients had concomitant metal implants outside of the foot and ankle from other orthopaedic procedures. All patients with foot and ankle implants alone passed through undetected. Seven hardware sets were detected ex vivo at the airports enhanced setting.


CONCLUSIONS
Our results indicate that patients with foot and ankle implants alone are unlikely to be detected by walkthrough metal detectors at standard airport settings. When additional hardware is present from orthopaedic procedures outside of the foot and ankle, metal detection rates were higher. We believe that these results are important for surgeons in order to educate patients on how they might be affected when walking through a metal detector such as while traveling.


METHODS
Level II, prospective comparative study.
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Foot and Ankle Service, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA jychan04@gmail.com.
Jeremy Y
JY
Chan
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Foot and Ankle Service, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA.
Sriniwasan B
SB
Mani
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Foot and Ankle Service, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA.
Phillip N
PN
Williams
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Foot and Ankle Service, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA.
Martin J
MJ
O'Malley
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Foot and Ankle Service, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA.
David S
DS
Levine
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Foot and Ankle Service, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA.
Matthew M
MM
Roberts
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Foot and Ankle Service, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA.
Scott J
SJ
Ellis
airport; hardware; implant; metal detection; prosthesis