OBJECTIVES: To compare the costs of CT- and MR-guided lumbosacral nerve root infiltration for minimally invasive treatment of low back pain and radicular pain. METHODS: Ninety patients (54 men, 36 women; mean age, 45.5 ± 12.8 years) underwent MR-guided single-site periradicular lumbosacral nerve root infiltration with 40 mg of triamcinolone acetonide. A further 91 patients (48 men, 43 women; mean age, 59.1 ± 13.8 years) were treated under CT fluoroscopy guidance. Prorated costs of equipment use (purchase, depreciation and maintenance), staff costs based on involvement times and expenditure for disposables were identified for MR- and CT-guided procedures. RESULTS: Mean intervention time was 20.6 min (14-30 min) for MR-guided and 14.3 min (7-32 min) for CT-guided treatment. The average total costs per patient were €177 for MR-guided and €88 for CT-guided interventions. These consisted of (MR/CT guidance) €93/29 for equipment use, €43/35 for staff and €41/24 for disposables. CONCLUSIONS: Lumbosacral nerve root infiltration using MRI guidance is still about twice as expensive as infiltration using CT guidance. Given the advantages of no radiation exposure and possible future decrease in prices for MRI devices and MR-compatible injection needles, MR-guided nerve root infiltration may become a promising alternative to the CT-guided procedure. KEY POINTS: • MR-guided nerve root infiltration therapy is now technically and clinically established. • Costs using MRI guidance are still about double those for CT guidance. • MR guidance involves no radiation exposure to patients and personnel. • MR-guided nerve root infiltration may become a promising alternative to CT.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the costs of CT- and MR-guided lumbosacral nerve root infiltration for minimally invasive treatment of low back pain and radicular pain. METHODS: Ninety patients (54 men, 36 women; mean age, 45.5 ± 12.8 years) underwent MR-guided single-site periradicular lumbosacral nerve root infiltration with 40 mg of triamcinolone acetonide. A further 91 patients (48 men, 43 women; mean age, 59.1 ± 13.8 years) were treated under CT fluoroscopy guidance. Prorated costs of equipment use (purchase, depreciation and maintenance), staff costs based on involvement times and expenditure for disposables were identified for MR- and CT-guided procedures. RESULTS: Mean intervention time was 20.6 min (14-30 min) for MR-guided and 14.3 min (7-32 min) for CT-guided treatment. The average total costs per patient were €177 for MR-guided and €88 for CT-guided interventions. These consisted of (MR/CT guidance) €93/29 for equipment use, €43/35 for staff and €41/24 for disposables. CONCLUSIONS: Lumbosacral nerve root infiltration using MRI guidance is still about twice as expensive as infiltration using CT guidance. Given the advantages of no radiation exposure and possible future decrease in prices for MRI devices and MR-compatible injection needles, MR-guided nerve root infiltration may become a promising alternative to the CT-guided procedure. KEY POINTS: • MR-guided nerve root infiltration therapy is now technically and clinically established. • Costs using MRI guidance are still about double those for CT guidance. • MR guidance involves no radiation exposure to patients and personnel. • MR-guided nerve root infiltration may become a promising alternative to CT.
Authors: Christopher Bangard; Jennifer Paszek; Frank Berg; Gesa Eyl; Josef Kessler; Klaus Lackner; Axel Gossmann Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2007-03-19 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Kenneth P Botwin; Santhosh Thomas; Robert D Gruber; Francisco M Torres; Constantine C Bouchlas; Joshua J Rittenberg; Sanjiv Rao Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Brook I Martin; Richard A Deyo; Sohail K Mirza; Judith A Turner; Bryan A Comstock; William Hollingworth; Sean D Sullivan Journal: JAMA Date: 2008-02-13 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: F Streitparth; T Walter; U Wonneberger; S Chopra; F Wichlas; M Wagner; K G Hermann; B Hamm; U Teichgräber Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2009-09-02 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Florian Streitparth; Tony Hartwig; Thula Walter; Maximilian De Bucourt; Michael Putzier; Patrick Strube; Tina Bretschneider; Patrick Freyhardt; Martin Maurer; Diane Renz; Bernhard Gebauer; Bernd Hamm; Ulf K M Teichgräber Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-05-09 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Adrian Kastler; Romain Perolat; Bruno Kastler; Caroline Maindet-Dominici; Jan Fritz; Alim Louis Benabid; Stephan Chabardes; Alexandre Krainik Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-07-12 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Fabian Henry Jürgen Elsholtz; Lars-Arne Schaafs; Christoph Erxleben; Bernd Hamm; Stefan Markus Niehues Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2017-04-20 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Christian E Althoff; Matthias Bollow; Eugen Feist; Stephan R Marticorena-Garcia; Iris Eshed; Torsten Diekhoff; Bernd Hamm; Kay Geert A Hermann Journal: Clin Rheumatol Date: 2015-04-22 Impact factor: 2.980
Authors: Maximilian Nunninger; Victor Paul Bela Braun; Marco Ziegert; Felix Benjamin Schwarz; Bernd Hamm; Michael Scheel; Paul Jahnke Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2019-12-14 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Majid Maybody; Bedros Taslakian; Jeremy C Durack; Elena A Kaye; Joseph P Erinjeri; Govindarajan Srimathveeravalli; Stephen B Solomon Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2015-01-22 Impact factor: 4.531