Literature DB >> 22610528

Prereferral MRI use in patients with musculoskeletal tumors is not excessive.

Christopher T Martin1, Jose Morcuende, Joseph A Buckwalter, Benjamin J Miller.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Inappropriate MRI use has been targeted as a particular area of concern in orthopaedics, but it is unclear whether and to what extent its use is inappropriate in musculoskeletal oncology. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We therefore evaluated the incidence and cost of inappropriate prereferral MRI among patients with musculoskeletal tumors.
METHODS: We retrospectively identified 920 patients treated in a musculoskeletal oncology clinic between 2009 and 2010. We accepted as necessary any MRI for a primary bone sarcoma, for biopsy-proven soft tissue sarcomas, for soft tissue masses greater than 5 cm in diameter, for soft tissue masses deep to the fascia, for painful soft tissue masses, and for growing soft tissue masses. Patients without these criteria were reviewed by a team of musculoskeletal oncologists to determine the necessity. The criteria for a repeat MRI were failure to show the tumor, lack of gadolinium contrast, lack of T1 or T2 MRI sequence, or poor image quality. Cost was determined using 2010 Medicare reimbursement rates.
RESULTS: Of 920 patients, 320 (35%) arrived with a prereferral MRI study. Eight of the 320 (3%) studies were unnecessary, and 12 (4%) were necessary but were repeated. The cost was $11,474, which averages to $574 per study and $36 of waste per patient referred with an MRI study.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on our data, we judged MRI use before referral to our tertiary center as not excessive. This is likely attributable, in part, to the relatively low use of MRI in our referral base. Inappropriate MRI use in patients with tumors may not be as widespread as previously reported. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, case series. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22610528      PMCID: PMC3462841          DOI: 10.1007/s11999-012-2394-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res        ISSN: 0009-921X            Impact factor:   4.176


  20 in total

Review 1.  Soft-tissue lumps and bumps.

Authors:  Timothy A Damron; Christopher P Beauchamp; Bruce T Rougraff; William G Ward
Journal:  Instr Course Lect       Date:  2004

2.  U.S. health care spending in an international context.

Authors:  Uwe E Reinhardt; Peter S Hussey; Gerard F Anderson
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2004 May-Jun       Impact factor: 6.301

3.  Preoperative evaluation of osteosarcoma: value of gadopentetate dimeglumine-enhanced MR imaging.

Authors:  L L Seeger; B E Widoff; L W Bassett; G Rosen; J J Eckardt
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1991-08       Impact factor: 3.959

4.  Subtraction technique for contrast-enhanced MR images of musculoskeletal tumors.

Authors:  S L Hanna; J W Langston; S A Gronemeyer; B D Fletcher
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  1990       Impact factor: 2.546

5.  Radiologic staging of primary bone sarcoma: MR imaging, scintigraphy, angiography, and CT correlated with pathologic examination.

Authors:  J L Bloem; A H Taminiau; F Eulderink; J Hermans; E K Pauwels
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1988-12       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Prereferral evaluation of patients with suspected bone and soft tissue tumors.

Authors:  Albert J Aboulafia; Alan M Levin; James Blum
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  The implications of regional variations in Medicare spending. Part 1: the content, quality, and accessibility of care.

Authors:  Elliott S Fisher; David E Wennberg; Thérèse A Stukel; Daniel J Gottlieb; F L Lucas; Etoile L Pinder
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2003-02-18       Impact factor: 25.391

8.  The implications of regional variations in Medicare spending. Part 2: health outcomes and satisfaction with care.

Authors:  Elliott S Fisher; David E Wennberg; Thérèse A Stukel; Daniel J Gottlieb; F L Lucas; Etoile L Pinder
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2003-02-18       Impact factor: 25.391

Review 9.  Imaging of bone tumors.

Authors:  A M Davies; R M Wellings
Journal:  Curr Opin Radiol       Date:  1992

10.  Health expenditure trends in OECD countries, 1990-2001.

Authors:  Manfred Huber; Eva Orosz
Journal:  Health Care Financ Rev       Date:  2003
View more
  6 in total

1.  Evaluation of imaging utilization prior to referral of musculoskeletal tumors: a prospective study.

Authors:  Lukas M Nystrom; Nickolas B Reimer; Cooper W Dean; Charles H Bush; Mark T Scarborough; C Parker Gibbs
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2015-01-07       Impact factor: 5.284

2.  What is the use of imaging before referral to an orthopaedic oncologist? A prospective, multicenter investigation.

Authors:  Benjamin J Miller; Raffi S Avedian; Rajiv Rajani; Lee Leddy; Jeremy R White; Judd Cummings; Tessa Balach; Kevin MacDonald
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  Is Knee Magnetic Resonance Imaging Overutilized in Current Practice?

Authors:  Young Dong Song; Nimesh Prakash Jain; Seok Jin Kim; Sae Kwang Kwon; Moon Jong Chang; Chong Bum Chang; Tae Kyun Kim
Journal:  Knee Surg Relat Res       Date:  2015-06-01

4.  Surface Coil Intensity Correction in Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Spinal Metastases.

Authors:  Hong Ren; Wei Lin; Xianjun Ding
Journal:  Open Med (Wars)       Date:  2017-05-20

5.  The appropriate and sequential value of standard radiograph, computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging to characterize a bone tumor.

Authors:  M Gaume; S Chevret; R Campagna; F Larousserie; D Biau
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-04-13       Impact factor: 4.379

Review 6.  Multidisciplinary management of soft tissue sarcoma.

Authors:  Lukas M Nystrom; Nickolas B Reimer; John D Reith; Long Dang; Robert A Zlotecki; Mark T Scarborough; C Parker Gibbs
Journal:  ScientificWorldJournal       Date:  2013-07-28
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.