The impact of modern airport security protocols on patients with total shoulder replacements
- Author:
Michael D. SCHEIDT
1
;
Neal SETHI
;
Matthew BALLARD
;
Michael WESOLOWSKI
;
Dane SALAZAR
;
Nickolas GARBIS
Author Information
- Publication Type:Original Article
- From:Clinics in Shoulder and Elbow 2023;26(4):416-422
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
Background:Advancements in airport screening measures in response to 9/11 have resulted in increased false alarm rates for patients with orthopedic and metal implants. With the implementation of millimeter-wave scanning technology, it is important to assess the changes in airport screening experiences of patients who underwent total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA).
Methods:Here, 197 patients with prior anatomic and reverse TSA completed between 2013 and 2020 responded to a questionnaire regarding their experiences with airport travel screening after their operation. Of these patients, 86 (44%) stated that they had traveled by plane, while 111 (56%) had not. The questionnaire addressed several measures including the number of domestic and international flights following the operation, number of false alarm screenings by the millimeter-wave scanner, patient body habitus, and presence of additional metal implants.
Results:A total of 53 patients (62%) responded “yes” to false screening alarms due to shoulder arthroplasty. The odds of a false screening alarm for patients with other metal implants was 5.87 times that of a false screening alarm for patients with no other metal implants (P<0.1). Of a reported 662 flights, 303 (45.8%) resulted in false screening alarms. Greater body mass index was not significantly lower in patients who experienced false screening alarms (P=0.30).
Conclusions:Patients with anatomic and reverse TSA trigger false alarms with millimeter-wave scanners during airport screening at rates consistent with prior reports following 9/11. Patient education on the possibility of false alarms during airport screening is important until improvements in implant identification are made.Level of evidence: IV.
