Advertisement

Skeletal Radiology

, Volume 33, Issue 5, pp 272–276 | Cite as

Trends in utilization: has extremity MR imaging replaced diagnostic arthroscopy?

  • Nicole Glynn
  • William B. MorrisonEmail author
  • Laurence Parker
  • Mark E. Schweitzer
  • John A. Carrino
Article

Abstract

Objective

To examine the relative change in utilization of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging of the extremities versus diagnostic and therapeutic arthroscopy.

Design and patients

Using the 1993, 1996, and 1999 nationwide Medicare Part B databases, utilization rates (per 100,000) were determined for upper and lower extremity MR imaging, diagnostic arthroscopy and therapeutic arthroscopy using CPT-4 codes. Utilization of extremity MR imaging was compared with that of diagnostic and therapeutic arthroscopy in 10 geographic regions of the United States and tracked over time.

Results

Combined lower and upper extremity MR imaging utilization per 100,000 increased from 393 to 1,056 in 1999 (+168.7%). Utilization of diagnostic arthroscopy of the extremities decreased from 18 in 1993 to 8 in 1999 (−55.6%); therapeutic arthroscopy rates increased from 461 in 1993 to 636 in 1999 (+40.0%). Specifically, from 1993 to 1999, utilization of lower extremity MR imaging increased from 270 to 661 (+144.8%). Utilization of diagnostic arthroscopy of the knee over the same time period decreased from 11 to 5 (−54.5%); therapeutic arthroscopy increased from 394 to 501 (+27.2%). Similarly, utilization rates for upper extremity MR imaging increased from 123 to 395 (+221.1%). Utilization of diagnostic arthroscopy of the shoulder over the same time period decreased from 7 to 2 (−71.4%); therapeutic arthroscopy increased from 44 to 104 (+136.4%). No specific geographic trends were ascertained.

Conclusion

The utilization of MR imaging of the extremities has markedly increased from 1993 to 1999. During the same time period the utilization of diagnostic arthroscopy has decreased and that of therapeutic arthroscopy has increased. These findings support the hypothesis that there is increased reliance of clinical practitioners on the diagnostic information provided by MR imaging in preoperative clinical decision-making.

Keywords

Arthroscopy Extremities, MR Joints, MR Joints, surgery Magnetic resonance (MR), utilization 

Notes

Acknowledgment

We would like to acknowledge Jonathan H. Sunshine, Ph.D., the Senior Director of Research at the American College of Radiology in Reston, VA for providing a copy of the Medicare database.

References

  1. 1.
    Johannsen HV, Freuensgaard S. Arthroscopy in the diagnosis of acute injuries to the knee joint. Int Orthop 1988; 12:283–286.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cofield RH. Arthroscopy of the shoulder. Mayo Clin Proc 1983; 58:501–508.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Parisien JS. Shoulder arthroscopy. Technique and indications. Bull Hosp Jt Dis Orthop Inst 1983; 43:56–69.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Curran WP Jr, Woodward EP. Arthroscopy: its role in diagnosis and treatment of athletic knee injuries. Am J Sports Med 1980; 8:415–418.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sherman OH, Fox JM, Snyder SJ, Del Pizzo W, Friedman MJ, Ferkel RD, Lawley MJ. Arthroscopy—”no problem surgery”. An analysis of complications in two thousand six hundred and forty cases. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1986; 68:256–265.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ketterl R, Beckurts T, Kovachs J, Stubinger B, Hipp R, Claudi B. Gas-gangrene following arthroscopic surgery. Arthroscopy 1989; 5:79–83.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stringer MD, Steadman CA, Hedges AR, Thomas EM, Morley TR, Kakkar VV. Deep vein thrombosis after elective knee surgery. An incidence study in 312 patients. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1989; 71:492–497.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kelly EW, Morrey BF, O’Driscoll SW. Complications of elbow arthroscopy. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2001; 83:25–34.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Weinstabl R, Muellner T, Vecsei V, Kainberger F, Kramer M. Economic considerations for the diagnosis and therapy of meniscal lesions: can magnetic resonance imaging help reduce the expense? World J Surg 1997; 21:363–368.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bui-Mansfield LT, Youngberg RA, Warme W, Pitcher JD, Nguyen PL. Potential cost savings of MR imaging obtained before arthroscopy of the knee: evaluation of 50 consecutive patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997; 168:913–918.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ruwe PA, Wright J, Randall RL, Lynch JK, Jokl P, McCarthy S. Can MR imaging effectively replace diagnostic arthroscopy? Radiology 1992; 183:335–339.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Physicians’ current procedural terminology, 4th edn. Chicago: American Medical Association, 1993.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Carmichael IW, MacLeod AM, Travlos J. MRI can prevent unnecessary arthroscopy. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1997; 79:624–625.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yawn B, Krein S, Christianson J, Hartley D, Moscovice I. Rural radiology: who is producing images and who is reading them? J Rural Health 1997; 13:136–144.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ISS 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicole Glynn
    • 1
  • William B. Morrison
    • 1
    Email author
  • Laurence Parker
    • 1
  • Mark E. Schweitzer
    • 2
  • John A. Carrino
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyThomas Jefferson University HospitalPhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyNew York University Hospital for Joint DiseaseNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.Department of RadiologyBrigham and Women’s HospitalBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations