Literature DB >> 14985875

Trends in utilization: has extremity MR imaging replaced diagnostic arthroscopy?

Nicole Glynn1, William B Morrison, Laurence Parker, Mark E Schweitzer, John A Carrino.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To examine the relative change in utilization of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging of the extremities versus diagnostic and therapeutic arthroscopy. DESIGN AND PATIENTS: Using the 1993, 1996, and 1999 nationwide Medicare Part B databases, utilization rates (per 100000) were determined for upper and lower extremity MR imaging, diagnostic arthroscopy and therapeutic arthroscopy using CPT-4 codes. Utilization of extremity MR imaging was compared with that of diagnostic and therapeutic arthroscopy in 10 geographic regions of the United States and tracked over time.
RESULTS: Combined lower and upper extremity MR imaging utilization per 100000 increased from 393 to 1056 in 1999 (+168.7%). Utilization of diagnostic arthroscopy of the extremities decreased from 18 in 1993 to 8 in 1999 (-55.6%); therapeutic arthroscopy rates increased from 461 in 1993 to 636 in 1999 (+40.0%). Specifically, from 1993 to 1999, utilization of lower extremity MR imaging increased from 270 to 661 (+144.8%). Utilization of diagnostic arthroscopy of the knee over the same time period decreased from 11 to 5 (-54.5%); therapeutic arthroscopy increased from 394 to 501 (+27.2%). Similarly, utilization rates for upper extremity MR imaging increased from 123 to 395 (+221.1%). Utilization of diagnostic arthroscopy of the shoulder over the same time period decreased from 7 to 2 (-71.4%); therapeutic arthroscopy increased from 44 to 104 (+136.4%). No specific geographic trends were ascertained.
CONCLUSION: The utilization of MR imaging of the extremities has markedly increased from 1993 to 1999. During the same time period the utilization of diagnostic arthroscopy has decreased and that of therapeutic arthroscopy has increased. These findings support the hypothesis that there is increased reliance of clinical practitioners on the diagnostic information provided by MR imaging in preoperative clinical decision-making.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 14985875     DOI: 10.1007/s00256-004-0750-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Skeletal Radiol        ISSN: 0364-2348            Impact factor:   2.199


  13 in total

1.  Rural radiology: who is producing images and who is reading them?

Authors:  B Yawn; S Krein; J Christianson; D Hartley; I Moscovice
Journal:  J Rural Health       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 4.333

2.  Can MR imaging effectively replace diagnostic arthroscopy?

Authors:  P A Ruwe; J Wright; R L Randall; J K Lynch; P Jokl; S McCarthy
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1992-05       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  MRI can prevent unnecessary arthroscopy.

Authors:  I W Carmichael; A M MacLeod; J Travlos
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  1997-07

4.  Potential cost savings of MR imaging obtained before arthroscopy of the knee: evaluation of 50 consecutive patients.

Authors:  L T Bui-Mansfield; R A Youngberg; W Warme; J D Pitcher; P L Nguyen
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1997-04       Impact factor: 3.959

5.  Deep vein thrombosis after elective knee surgery. An incidence study in 312 patients.

Authors:  M D Stringer; C A Steadman; A R Hedges; E M Thomas; T R Morley; V V Kakkar
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  1989-05

6.  Complications of elbow arthroscopy.

Authors:  E W Kelly; B F Morrey; S W O'Driscoll
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 5.284

7.  Shoulder arthroscopy. Technique and indications.

Authors:  J S Parisien
Journal:  Bull Hosp Jt Dis Orthop Inst       Date:  1983

8.  Arthroscopy of the shoulder.

Authors:  R H Cofield
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  1983-08       Impact factor: 7.616

9.  Arthroscopy in the diagnosis of acute injuries to the knee joint.

Authors:  H V Johannsen; S Fruensgaard
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  1988       Impact factor: 3.075

10.  Arthroscopy--"no-problem surgery". An analysis of complications in two thousand six hundred and forty cases.

Authors:  O H Sherman; J M Fox; S J Snyder; W Del Pizzo; M J Friedman; R D Ferkel; M J Lawley
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1986-02       Impact factor: 5.284

View more
  5 in total

1.  [Diagnostic approaches to acute knee injury in childhood and adolescence. Yesterday and today].

Authors:  M Maier; E V Geiger; L Sellnow; D Schneidmüller; N Vennemann; M Mack; I Marzi
Journal:  Unfallchirurg       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 1.000

2.  Meniscus--friend or foe: epidemiologic observations and surgical implications.

Authors:  Jeffrey N Katz; Scott D Martin
Journal:  Arthritis Rheum       Date:  2009-03

3.  Distribution of Bone Contusion Patterns in Acute Noncontact Anterior Cruciate Ligament-Torn Knees.

Authors:  Sophia Y Kim-Wang; Melissa B Scribani; Michael B Whiteside; Louis E DeFrate; Tally E Lassiter; Jocelyn R Wittstein
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  2021-01-07       Impact factor: 6.202

4.  Diagnostic accuracy of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in assessment of Meniscal and ACL tear: Correlation with arthroscopy.

Authors:  Jamal Yaqoob; Muhammad Shahbaz Alam; Nadeem Khalid
Journal:  Pak J Med Sci       Date:  2015 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 1.088

5.  Magnetic resonance imaging of the knee in Norway 2002-2004 (national survey): rapid increase, older patients, large geographic differences.

Authors:  Ansgar Espeland; Nils L Natvig; Ingard Løge; Lars Engebretsen; Jostein Ellingsen
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2007-07-22       Impact factor: 2.655

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.