» Articles » PMID: 24363186

Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Hip: Poor Cost Utility for Treatment of Adult Patients with Hip Pain

Overview
Publisher Wolters Kluwer
Specialty Orthopedics
Date 2013 Dec 24
PMID 24363186
Citations 11
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
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.

Citing Articles

Evaluating the Need for Preoperative MRI Before Primary Hip Arthroscopy in Patients 40 Years and Younger With Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome: A Multicenter Comparative Analysis.

Ramkumar P, Berrier A, Helm J, Koolmees D, Pareek A, Krych A Orthop J Sports Med. 2023; 11(1):23259671221144776.

PMID: 36655021 PMC: 9841845. DOI: 10.1177/23259671221144776.


Osteoarthritis of the hip: is radiography still needed?.

Mourad C, Vande Berg B Skeletal Radiol. 2022; 52(11):2259-2270.

PMID: 36538067 PMC: 10509135. DOI: 10.1007/s00256-022-04270-8.


Up-regulation of urinary exosomal hsa-microRNA-200b-3p and hsa-microRNA-206 in patients of steroid-induced osteonecrosis of femoral head.

Chen D, Zhang G, Li Y, Zhang M, He Q, Yang J Am J Transl Res. 2021; 13(7):7574-7590.

PMID: 34377236 PMC: 8340157.


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

Alabousi M, Gauthier I, Li N, Dos Santos G, Golev D, Patlas M Emerg Radiol. 2019; 26(5):549-556.

PMID: 31209592 DOI: 10.1007/s10140-019-01696-x.


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

Yoon A, Mathews A, Huetteman H, Michelotti B, Chung K J Am Board Fam Med. 2018; 31(5):795-804.

PMID: 30201676 PMC: 6341471. DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2018.05.170423.


References
1.
Lee G, Hooker M, Harpstrite K . Magnetic resonance imaging in a military setting: a utilization analysis. Mil Med. 2001; 166(2):126-31. View

2.
Botser I, Ozoude G, Martin D, Siddiqi A, Kuppuswami S, Domb B . Femoral anteversion in the hip: comparison of measurement by computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and physical examination. Arthroscopy. 2012; 28(5):619-27. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2011.10.021. View

3.
Mintz D, Hooper T, Connell D, Buly R, Padgett D, Potter H . Magnetic resonance imaging of the hip: detection of labral and chondral abnormalities using noncontrast imaging. Arthroscopy. 2005; 21(4):385-93. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2004.12.011. View

4.
Cherian S, Laorr A, Saleh K, Kuskowski M, Bailey R, Cheng E . Quantifying the extent of femoral head involvement in osteonecrosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003; 85(2):309-15. DOI: 10.2106/00004623-200302000-00019. View

5.
Dolan M, Heyworth B, Bedi A, Duke G, Kelly B . CT reveals a high incidence of osseous abnormalities in hips with labral tears. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010; 469(3):831-8. PMC: 3032877. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-010-1539-6. View