[masraum]

Originally Posted by Rot 911

WTF???

Been having problems with my lower back since last April. Turns out I need some minor surgery to rectify things. So, of course, before I can get that done, I have to get an MRI. So my doctor calls the local imaging company that does such things. The imaging company calls me and tells me due to the amount of shrapnel in my body they don’t feel “Comfortable“ doing it, and suggests my doctor contact one of the local hospitals to do it. I told them very little of it is steel fragments. Most of it are lead pellets from, I think, an angry Cuban with a shotgun I met during operation just cause.

So now I have to wait until my doctor find a hospital that is “comfortable“ with doing my MRI. I guess things could be worse and I could be stuck with hoping the VA would do this.

As the person having the MRI done, I'd be VERY nervous if I thought ANY of it was steel fragments.

If I thought I had any ferrous/magnetic material in my body, I'd be very, VERY nervous about getting an MRI. If I was confident that there was NOTHING ferrous/magnetic inside my body, then I wouldn't be worried.

A quick google search...

https://mriquestions.com/bullets-and-shrapnel.html

Regardless of their metallic composition, bullets, shot, and bits of shrapnel do not produce significant RF-heating due to their overall small dimensions. Projectiles composed of only non-ferromagnetic materials (e.g., lead, copper, brass, or zinc) neither undergo heating nor significant translational or or rotational forces. They should thus be considered OK to scan under any conditions. The primary safety concern is for projectiles containing ferromagnetic steel which can move significantly when placed in a strong external magnetic field.​
My basic approach to screening patients with gunshot injuries involves assessing the diagnostic benefit of MRI vs the risk. The benefit analysis depends on the particular clinical scenario and the likelihood that an alternative technique (such as CT or US) could answer the diagnostic question. My risk analysis, described below, is based upon the a priori probability that the projectile is ferromagnetic, as well as its precise anatomic location and time since injury.
Assessing the Probability of Ferromagnetism

• All bullets and shrapnel acquired in military service or overseas should be considered ferromagnetic unless proven otherwise.
• All BB's and pellets should be considered ferromagnetic.
• All shotgun pellets should be considered ferromagnetic, although about half are not. Pellets that distort into multiple irregular (non-rounded) shapes are more likely to be made of lead.
• Bullets from pistols and handguns in the USA virtually never contain steel, as their manufacture and sale (but not possession) has been a federal crime since the attempted assassination of President Reagan in 1986.
• Bullets from domestic handguns implanted more than 25 years ago should be considered ferromagnetic out of extra caution, although the probability is low.
• Armor-piercing steel-jacketed and steel-cored bullets can and are legally sold for use in rifles in the USA and elsewhere. Being so powerful/penetrating they would likely pass straight through a person unless stopped by a large bone. Although the probability is small that a domestic rifle bullet found on screening would be ferromagnetic, it should assumed to be so out of caution.
• Steel jacketed ammunition represents a large amount of "non-defense" ammunition (i.e., that meant for target practice)
• "Defense" ammunition, synonymous with hollow point or expanding ammunition, never contains a steel jacket as it does not aid in projectile expansion and fragmentation
• Some superficially located ferromagnetic pellets and bullets may be positively identified by a hand-held ferromagnetic metal detector; but a negative reading should be considered inconclusive.
• ​Some investigators have proposed using expanded range dynamic CT or dual-energy CT to determine bullet composition, but to date the results have been variable. ​

A final interesting approach has been recently proposed by Fountain et al (2021). The method involves looking at the projectile on x-ray and noting either if it is deformed (in the absence of hitting bone) or has left a debris trail. Either of these features implies a lead or other non-steel composition that is relatively "soft", having been designed to disperse its energy upon impact. If you don't see deformity or a debris trail you still may have a lead projectile, but you should probably treat it as though it might be ferromagnetic. I have not personally used this method, but it makes sense.