Literature DB >> 24363186

Magnetic resonance imaging of the hip: poor cost utility for treatment of adult patients with hip pain.

James A Keeney1, Ryan M Nunley, Muyibat Adelani, Nathan Mall.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although MRI is frequently used to diagnose conditions affecting the hip, its cost-effectiveness has not been defined. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We performed this retrospective study to determine for patients 40 to 80 years old: (1) the differences in hip MRI indications between orthopaedic and nonorthopaedic practitioners; (2) the clinical indications that most commonly influence treatment decisions; (3) the likelihood that hip MRI influences treatment decisions separate from plain radiographs; and (4) the cost of obtaining hip MRI studies that influence treatment decisions (impact studies).
METHODS: We retrospectively assessed 218 consecutive hip MRI studies (213 patients) at one institution over a 5-year interval. Medical records, plain radiographs, and MRI studies were reviewed to determine how frequently individual MRI findings determined treatment recommendations (impact study). The cost estimate of an impact study was calculated from the product of institutional MRI unit cost (USD 436) and the proportion of impact studies relative to all studies obtained either for a specific indication or by an orthopaedic/nonorthopaedic clinician.
RESULTS: Nonorthopaedic clinicians more frequently ordered hip MRI without a clinical diagnosis (72% versus 30%, p < 0.01), before plain radiographs (29% versus 3%, p < 0.001), and with less frequent impact on treatment (6% versus 15%, p < 0.05). Hip MRI most frequently influenced treatment when assessing for a tumor (58%, p < 0.001) or infection (40%, p < 0.001) and least frequently when assessing for pain (1%, p < 0.002). Hip MRI impacted a treatment decision independent of plain radiographic findings in only 7% of studies (3% surgical, 4% nonsurgical). Hip MRI cost was least when assessing for a neoplasm (USD 750) and greatest when assessing undefined hip pain (USD 59,000). The cost of obtaining an impact study was also less when the ordering clinician was an orthopaedic clinician (USD 2800) than a nonorthopaedic clinician (USD 7800).
CONCLUSIONS: Although MRI can be valuable for diagnosing or staging specific conditions, it is not cost-effective as a screening tool for hip pain that is not supported by history, clinical examination, and plain radiographic findings in patients between 40 and 80 years of age. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, economic and decision analysis study. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24363186      PMCID: PMC3916585          DOI: 10.1007/s11999-013-3431-7

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


  23 in total

1.  Pseudotumors in association with well-functioning metal-on-metal hip prostheses: a case-control study using three-dimensional computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Alister J Hart; Keshthra Satchithananda; Alexander D Liddle; Shiraz A Sabah; Donald McRobbie; Johann Henckel; Justin P Cobb; John A Skinner; Adam W Mitchell
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2012-02-15       Impact factor: 5.284

2.  CT reveals a high incidence of osseous abnormalities in hips with labral tears.

Authors:  Mark M Dolan; Benton E Heyworth; Asheesh Bedi; Gavin Duke; Bryan T Kelly
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2010-10-01       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  Acetabular and femoral radiographic abnormalities associated with labral tears.

Authors:  Michael W Peelle; Gregory J Della Rocca; William J Maloney; Madelyn C Curry; John C Clohisy
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  The role of MR imaging in staging femoral head osteonecrosis.

Authors:  Aristidis H Zibis; Apostolos H Karantanas; Nikolaos T Roidis; Michael E Hantes; Paraskevi Argiri; Theofanis Moraitis; Konstantinos N Malizos
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2007-06-06       Impact factor: 3.528

5.  Usefulness of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in differentiating between septic arthritis and transient synovitis in the hip joint.

Authors:  Eun Young Kim; Kyu-Sung Kwack; Jae Ho Cho; Doo-Hyung Lee; Seung-Hyun Yoon
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 3.959

6.  Radiographic risk factors for labral lesions in femoroacetabular impingement.

Authors:  Thomas Kappe; Tugrul Kocak; Ralf Bieger; Heiko Reichel; Christian R Fraitzl
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2011-07-12       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  The role of MRI in the diagnosis of proximal femoral fractures in the elderly.

Authors:  R Chana; A Noorani; N Ashwood; U Chatterji; J Healy; P Baird
Journal:  Injury       Date:  2005-10-24       Impact factor: 2.586

8.  Is magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) necessary to exclude occult hip fracture?

Authors:  M Hossain; C Barwick; A K Sinha; J G Andrew
Journal:  Injury       Date:  2007-09-18       Impact factor: 2.586

9.  Assessment of osteoarthritis in hips with femoroacetabular impingement using delayed gadolinium enhanced MRI of cartilage.

Authors:  Rebecca H Jessel; Christoph Zilkens; Carl Tiderius; Marcel Dudda; Tallal Charles Mamisch; Young-Jo Kim
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 4.813

10.  Septic arthritis versus transient synovitis of the hip: gadolinium-enhanced MRI finding of decreased perfusion at the femoral epiphysis.

Authors:  Kyu-Sung Kwack; Jae Hyun Cho; Jei Hee Lee; Jae Ho Cho; Ki Keun Oh; Sun Yong Kim
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 3.959

View more
  7 in total

Review 1.  Technology assessment and cost-effectiveness in orthopedics: how to measure outcomes and deliver value in a constantly changing healthcare environment.

Authors:  Jeremy M Burnham; Fabien Meta; Vincent Lizzio; Eric C Makhni; Kevin J Bozic
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2017-06

2.  Multi-detector CT for suspected hip fragility fractures: A diagnostic test accuracy systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Mostafa Alabousi; Isabelle D Gauthier; Nicole Li; Gonçalo Mf Dos Santos; Dmitry Golev; Michael N Patlas; Abdullah Alabousi
Journal:  Emerg Radiol       Date:  2019-06-17

3.  A Multi-Functional Tumor Theranostic Nanoplatform for MRI Guided Photothermal-Chemotherapy.

Authors:  Jinjin Shi; Binghua Wang; Zhaoyang Chen; Wei Liu; Jingjing Pan; Lin Hou; Zhenzhong Zhang
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  2016-03-16       Impact factor: 4.200

4.  Magnetic resonance arthrography and the prevalence of acetabular labral tears in patients 50 years of age and older.

Authors:  Rohit Jayakar; Alexa Merz; Benjamin Plotkin; Dean Wang; Leanne Seeger; Sharon L Hame
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2016-04-20       Impact factor: 2.199

5.  Overuse of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Diagnosis and Treatment of Moderate to Severe Osteoarthritis.

Authors:  Seth L Sherman; Trevor R Gulbrandsen; Hal A Lewis; Martin H Gregory; Nicholas M Capito; Aaron D Gray; B Sonny Bal
Journal:  Iowa Orthop J       Date:  2018

6.  Improving Effective Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) Application in Soft Tissue Wrist Injury.

Authors:  Alfred P Yoon; Alexandra L Mathews; Helen E Huetteman; Brett F Michelotti; Kevin C Chung
Journal:  J Am Board Fam Med       Date:  2018 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.657

Review 7.  Economics of Musculoskeletal Ultrasound.

Authors:  Nathalie J Bureau; Daniela Ziegler
Journal:  Curr Radiol Rep       Date:  2016-06-20
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.