Diagnostic Use of Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Magnetic Resonance Arthrography for Intra-Articular Pathologies of the Hip Joint

Abstract

Introduction In no other country magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is as frequently used as in Germany. The studyʼs aim is to analyse a daily referral procedure for hip MRI in German healthcare and to estimate ineffective costs for the healthcare system.

Material and Methods Over one year 203 consecutive MRIs of the hip joint were analysed retrospectively. Referrals were reviewed for their indications, e.g. prevalence of MRIs to detect intra-articular pathologies in the German population was estimated with data of three health insurances.

Results No indication was noted on 21% of the referrals to MRI. On 66% of the referrals a reasonable indications could be identified. There were more uncertainties of the indications for arthrographies. Collecting data concerning the prevalence of MRI for intra-articular hip pathologies is difficult due to the lack of precise diagnosis and procedure coding. The expendable costs caused by MRI of the hip joint amount from 800,000 to 2.4 million € during a one year period.

Discussion Medical referrals should be used thoroughly for communication between referrers and radiologists. Contribution of the letter of referral to health economics is underestimated. To improve estimation of prevalences in the diagnostics of intra-articular hip pathologies, precise diagnosis and procedure codings are needed.

Key words

MRI - hip - healthcare costs - referrals

Publication History

Article published online:
11 November 2019

• References/Literatur

• 1 Statistisches Bundesamt. Statistisches Jahrbuch 2018. 150 Im Internet (Stand: 17.06.2019): https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Querschnitt/Jahrbuch/jb-gesundheit.pdf
• 2 Grobe TG, Dörning H, Schwartz FW. BARMER GEK Arztreport 2011. Auswertungen zu Daten bis 2009. Schwerpunkt: Bildgebende Diagnostik – Computer- und Magnetresonanztomographie. St. Augustin: Asgard; 2011: 210-211 241
• 3 McCarthy JC, Lee J. Hip arthroscopy: indications and technical pearls. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2005; 441: 180-187
• 4 McCarthy JC, Lee JA. Arthroscopic intervention in early hip disease. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2004; (429) 157-162
• 5 OʼLeary JA, Berend K, Vail TP. The relationship between diagnosis and outcome in arthroscopy of the hip. Arthroscopy 2001; 17: 181-188 doi:10.1053/jars.2001.21481
• 6 Schneider G, Massmann A, Fries P. et al. [Magnetic resonance tomography and arthrography of the hip joint]. Orthopade 2006; 35: 22-26 28–32 doi:10.1007/s00132-005-0890-x
• 7 Mamisch TC, Werlen S, Zilkens C. et al. [Radiological diagnosis of femoroacetabular impingement]. Radiologe 2009; 49: 425-433
• 8 Expert Panel on Musculoskeletal Imaging. Mintz DN, Roberts CC, Bencardino JT. et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria^® Chronic Hip Pain. J Am Coll Radiol 2017; 14 (5 Suppl.): S90-S102 doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2017.01.035
• 9 Janka R. Protokollempfehlungen der AG Bildgebende Verfahren des Bewegungsapparates (AG BVB) der Deutschen Röntgengesellschaft (DRG) zu Messsequenzen für die Gelenk-MRT. Rofo 2018; 190: 179-195
• 10 Kassarjian A, Fritz B, Afonso PD, Alcalá-Galiano A. et al. European Society of Musculoskeletal Radiology (ESSR). Guidelines for MR Imaging of the Hip Region. Im Internet (Stand: 17.06.2019): https://essr.org/content-essr/uploads/2016/10/ESSR_Sports_guidelines.pdf
• 11 Heuck A, Dienst M, Glaser C. [Femoroacetabular impingement – Update 2019]. Radiologe 2019; 59: 242-256 doi:10.1007/s00117-018-0486-1
• 12 Cunningham DJ, Paranjape CS, Harris JD. et al. Advanced imaging adds little value in the diagnosis of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2017; 99: e133 doi:10.2106/JBJS.16.00963
• 13 Keeney JA, Nunley RM, Adelani M. et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the hip: poor cost utility for treatment of adult patients with hip pain. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2014; 472: 787-792 doi:10.1007/s11999-013-3431-7
• 14 Hendee WR, Becker GJ, Borgstede JP. et al. Addressing overutilization in medical imaging. Radiology 2010; 257: 240-245 doi:10.1148/radiol.10100063
• 15 Kassenärztliche Bundesvereinigung Berlin. Zahlen des EBM. Positionen 34450, 34442, 34452. 03/2018. Im Internet (Stand: 11.04.2019): https://www.kbv.de/media/sp/EBM_Gesamt___Stand_3._Quartal_2018.pdf
• 16 Zilkens C, Krauspe R, Bittersohl B. Diagnostik des Hüftgelenkes. AGA-Hüft-Komitee; 2017 Im Internet (Stand: 17.06.2019): http://www.aga-online.ch/fileadmin/user_upload/Komitee_Inhalte/Huefte/AGA_Diagnostik_FINAL_Hueftgelenk_10.pdf
• 17 Czerny C, Oschatz E, Neuhold A. et al. [MR arthrography of the hip joint]. Radiologe 2002; 42: 451-456
• 18 Czerny C, Kramer J, Neuhold A. et al. [Magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance arthrography of the acetabular labrum: comparison with surgical findings]. Rofo 2001; 173: 702-707 doi:10.1055/s-2001-16396
• 19 Straub R, Mack MG, Jacobi V. et al. [Magnetic resonance imaging in orthopaedic medicine]. Orthopade 2006; 35: 626-631 doi:10.1007/s00132-006-0948-4
• 20 Beyer HK. MRT der Gelenke und der Wirbelsäule – Radiologisch-orthopädische Diagnostik. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2003
• 21 Locher S, Werlen S, Leunig M. et al. [MR-Arthrography with radial sequences for visualization of early hip pathology not visible on plain radiographs]. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 2002; 140: 52-57 doi:10.1055/s-2002-22122
• 22 Chenot JF, Pieper A, Kochen MM. Kommunikation und Befundaustausch zwischen Hausärzten und Orthopäden bei Rückenschmerzen. Schmerz 2009; 23: 173-179
• 23 Pärtan G, Kainberger F, Frühwald F. [Referral guidelines in diagnostic imaging]. Radiologe 2008; 48: 268-271 doi:10.1007/s00117-008-1618-9
• 24 Europäische Kommission. Generaldirektion Umwelt. Leitlinien für die Überweisung zur Durchführung von Bild gebenden Verfahren; 2000. Im Internet: https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/118_de.pdf
• 25 Bundesärztekammer. Leitlinie zur Qualitätssicherung der MRT. Dtsch Arztebl 2000; 97: A2557-A2568
• 26 Philippon MJ, Bolia IK. Intra-articular hip injection is a valuable and cost-effective diagnostic tool but replacing advanced diagnostic methods is not currently the way to go: commentary on an article by Daniel J. Cunningham, MD, MHS, et al.: “Advanced imaging adds little value in the diagnosis of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome”. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2017; 99: e138 doi:10.2106/JBJS.17.01075
• 27 Bernau A, Heeg P. [Intraarticular punctures and injections: indications–prevention of infection–technique–complications]. Orthopade 2003; 32: 548-569 doi:10.1007/s00132-003-0498-y
• 28 Granata V, Cascella M, Fusco R. et al. Immediate adverse reactions to gadolinium-based MR contrast media: a retrospective analysis on 10,608 examinations. Biomed Res Int 2016; 2016: 3918292 doi:10.1155/2016/3918292
• 29 Okigawa T, Utsunomiya D, Tajiri S. et al. Incidence and severity of acute adverse reactions to four different gadolinium-based MR contrast agents. Magn Reson Med Sci 2014; 13: 1-6
• 30 Czerny C, Chiari C, Nobauer-Huhmann I. [Labral pathologies of the hip joint]. Radiologe 2019; 59: 234-241 doi:10.1007/s00117-018-0471-8
• 31 Robinson P. Conventional 3-T MRI and 1.5-T MR arthrography of femoroacetabular impingement. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2012; 199: 509-515 doi:10.2214/AJR.12.8672