Advertisement

Magnetic resonance imaging of the extremities. A critical appraisal of utilization by an orthopaedic service

  • P. Harrington
  • F. McGrath
  • R. Moran
Original articles
  • 20 Downloads

Summary

Objective: To assess the utilization of MRI by the orthopaedic department of a University Teaching Hospital for the investigation of musculoskeletal conditions affecting the extremities.Design: During a 12 month period, all patients referred for MRI of an extremity were enrolled in the study. Clinical details of presentation, surgical management and outcome were prospectively recorded.Patients: 91 patients were included with a mean age of 35 years. The following anatomical areas were scanned; knee (48), shoulder (31), hip (3), soft tissues (6), brachial plexus (2), wrist (1).Results: A significant finding was reported in 56 patients (62%) and surgery was undertaken in 42. With regard to MRI of the knee the sensitivity of the investigation was 95%. Four patients were referred inappropriately for the investigation.Conclusions: Selective referral for MRI for the investigation of the injured knee represents an appropriate use of this scarce resource. It allows arthroscopy to be targetted to those patients in whom the procedure will be therapeutic. Unnecessary diagnostic knee arthroscopy can and should be avoided. The study supports increased orthopaedic access to MRI for non spinal conditions in the future.

Key words

Magnetic resonance imaging utilization Appendicular skeleton Extremity Arthroscopy Cost effectiveness Appropriate use 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Baldor RA, Quirk ME, Dohan D (1993) Magnetic resonance imaging use by primary care physicians. J Family Pract 36: 281–85Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bassett LW, Gold RH (1989) Magnetic resonance imaging of the musculoskeletal system. An overview. Clin Orth 244: 17–28Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boeree NR, Ackroyd CE (1991) Assessment of the menisci and cruciate ligaments: an audit of clinical practice. Injury 22: 291–294CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boeree NR, Watkinson AF, Ackroyd CE, Johnson C (1991) Magnetic resonance imaging of meniscal and cruciate injuries of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 73-B: 452–457Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bradley WG Jr (1986) Comparing costs and efficacy of MRI. Am J Radiol 146: 1307–1310Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chissell HR, Allum RL, Keightley A (1994) MRI of the knee: its cost effective use in a district general hospital. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 76: 26–29PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cowley LT, Issacs HL, Young SW, Raffin TA (1994) Magnetic resonance imaging marketing and investment. Tensions between the forces of business and the practice of medicine. Chest 105: 920–928CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ehman RL, Berquist TH, McLeod RA (1988) Magnetic resonance imaging of the musculoskeletal system: a 5-year appraisal. Radiology 166: 313–320CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Evens RG, Evens RG (1991) Analysis of economics and use of magnetic resonance imaging units in the United States in 1990. Am J Radiol 157: 603–607Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gelb HJ, Glasgow SG, Sapega AA, Torg JS (1996) Magnetic resonance imaging of knee disorders. Clinical value and cost-effectiveness in a sports medicine practice. Am J Sports Med 24: 99–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Heron CW, Calvert PT (1992) Three dimensional gradient echo MR imaging of the knee: comparison with arthroscopy in 100 patients. Radiology 183: 839CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hisashige A (1994) Magnetic resonance imaging in Japan and the United States: analysis of utilization and economics. Am J Radiol 162: 511–512Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Noble J (1992) Unnecessary arthroscopy. Editorial. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 74-B: 797–798Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Polly DW, Callaghan JJ, Silkes RA (1988) The accuracy of selective magnetic resonance imaging compared with the findings of arthroscopy of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 70-A: 192–198Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Raunest J, Oberle K, Loehnert A, Hoetzinger H (1991) The clinical value of magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of meniscal disorders. J Bone Joint Surg [Am], 73-A: 11–16Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ruwe PA, Wright J, Randall RL, Lynch JK, Jokl P, McCarthy S (1992) Can MR imaging effectively replace diagnostic arthroscopy? Radiology 183: 335–339CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Vosburgh CL, Kopta JA (1994) Appropriate use of magnetic resonance imaging of the spine and extremities. Southern Med J 87: 801–804CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Watt I (1991) Magnetic resonance imaging in orthopaedics. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 73-B: 539–550Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. Harrington
    • 1
  • F. McGrath
    • 2
  • R. Moran
    • 3
  1. 1.FRCSI, FRCS (Orth)Orthopaedic Sp Registrar St James's HospitalLeedsU.K.
  2. 2.FRCR, Consultant RadiologistConsultant Orthopaedic Surgeon, Beaumont HospitalDublin 9Ireland
  3. 3.MCh, FRCSIConsultant Orthopaedic Surgeon, Beaumont HospitalDublin 9Ireland

Personalised recommendations