Editorial Commentary: Routine Preoperative Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Hip Arthroscopy Is Wasting Health Care Dollars and Delaying Surgical Intervention: Decision Making Should Be at the Discretion of the Health Care Provider Not Mandated by Health Care Insurers.

Abstract

Making an accurate preoperative diagnosis is critical to optimizing outcomes after hip arthroscopy. A detailed history, thorough physical examination, imaging studies, and diagnostic injections must all be considered in the decision-making process. In today's health care climate, it is imperative to obtain essential and indicated preoperative information while being mindful of health care dollars. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the hip has been shown to be a highly sensitive modality for hip and pelvis disorders. However, it is critical to recognize that acetabular labral tears and other hip pathology are highly prevalent in an asymptomatic young adult population. There are certainly situations when an MRI should be obtained (suspected arthritic symptoms, avascular necrosis, synovial disorders, uncommon osseous tumors); however, these patients generally present with atypical symptoms. In addition, obtaining an MRI can delay surgical intervention, which has been shown to lead to inferior outcomes in prior studies. MRI is not imperative when patients present with typical intermittent, deep anterior, lateral, groin pain with prolonged sitting, twisting and pivoting, and transitioning from sitting to standing. The typical physical examination includes positive hip impingement testing (FADIR / anterior impingement test) that recreates the patients presenting complaints. Appropriate imaging includes plain radiographs revealing adequate acetabular coverage (not significantly dysplastic) or acetabular overcoverage (pincer-type femoracetabular impingement), cam-type femoracetabular impingement, and well-maintained joint space on all views, including a false profile radiograph to further evaluate the anterior joint space. Finally, a diagnostic injection can be invaluable to further confirm the hip joint proper as the source of pain. If all of the above criteria are met, I strongly believe an MRI is unlikely to alter the surgical decision-making process. In the end, the treating clinician should determine when an MRI is necessary based on the presenting symptoms and examination, rather than insurers applying a blanket requirement for preauthorization. This physician autonomy would ultimately lead to more efficient and cost-effective patient care. Medicine is an art, and unjustified handcuffing of the artist without evidence could result in inferior results.