MR scanning of the acutely injured knee: sensitive, but is it cost effective?
retrospective_cohort · Level III
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 2124808.
- No licence information is recorded for this record.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
Abstract
Although magnetic resonance (MR) imaging has been established as an accurate diagnostic modality for knee pathology, the cost-effectiveness of this test is not known. In this investigation, we formulated a mathematical equation to assess cost-effectiveness and then used this formula to evaluate the use of knee MR as a diagnostic modality in acute knee injuries. We analyzed 105 consecutive MR scans performed at an imaging center with a diverse referral base, and identified 63 patients who had had symptoms for less than 6 months. Based on average regional medical costs, we calculated that diagnostic arthroscopy is more cost-effective than MR if 78% of the scanned patients eventually undergo arthroscopy. In our study population, 87% had arthroscopy after the MR scan. Therefore, in this patient cohort representing a diverse orthopedic community, arthroscopy alone would have been more cost-effective. Careful analysis in this type of cost-benefit framework would be beneficial and may lead to the establishment of objective criteria by which MR can be used in the most cost-effective manner.
Medical subject headings
- Knee Injuries
- Magnetic Resonance Imaging
- Technology Assessment, Biomedical
Anatomy
- knee