Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cost comparison analysis of low-field (0.23 T) MRI- and CT-guided bone biopsies

  • Health Economy
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of this study was to analyze and compare the costs of low-field (0.23 T) MRI- and CT-guided bone biopsies. The cost comparison consisted of 18 MRI-guided and 12 CT-guided bone biopsies performed during a 1-year period. The costs and activities of these two methods were analyzed by using activity-based cost accounting (ABC). The costs of MRI-guided bone biopsy (1205 Euro) were 2.55-fold compared with those of the CT-guided bone biopsy (472 Euro). The higher costs of the biopsy procedure in MRI were due to the higher material (5.57-fold) and personnel (2.73-fold) costs. The MRI-guided bone biopsies proved to be considerably more expensive than CT-guided bone biopsies. This was due to the higher material costs, especially the highly priced MRI compatible instrumentation and the longer procedure time. The MRI guidance in performing bone biopsies should be justified on the basis of the better accuracy and the lack of radiation. Evaluations of cost-effectiveness concerning MRI-guided bone biopsy are needed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ghelman B (1998) Biopsies of musculoskeletal system. Radiol Clin North Am 36:567–580

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Tikkakoski T, Lähde S, Puranen J, Apaja-Sarkkinen M (1992) Combined CT-guided biopsy and cytology in diagnosis of bony lesions. Acta Radiol 33:225–229

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Jelinek JS, Kransdorf MJ, Gray R, Aboulafia AJ, Malawer MM (1996) Percutaneous transpedicular biopsy of vertebral body lesions. Spine 21:2035–2040

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Leffler SG, Chew FS (1999) CT-guided percutaneous biopsy of sclerotic bone lesions: diagnostic yield and accuracy. Am J Roentgenol 172:1389–1392

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Fraser-Hill MA, Renfrew DL, Hilsenrath PE (1992) Percutaneous needle biopsy of musculoskeletal lesions. 2. Cost-effectiveness. Am J Roentgenol 158:813–818

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Vanel D, Bittoun J, Tardivon A (1998) MRI of bone metastases. Eur Radiol 8:1345–1351

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Gehl HB, Frahm C (1998) MRI-controlled biopsies. Radiologe 38:194–199

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Adam G, Bucker A, Nolte-Ernsting C, Tacke J, Gunther RW (1999) Interventional MR imaging: percutaneous abdominal and skeletal biopsies and drainages of the abdomen. Eur Radiol 9:1471–1478

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Buecker A, Adam G, Neuerburg JM, Glowinski A, van Vaals JJ, Guenther RW (1998) MR-guided biopsy using a T2-weighted single-shot zoom imaging sequence (local look technique). J Magn Reson Imaging 8:955–959

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kaplan GR, Saifuddin A, Pringle J, Noordeen A, Mehta MH (1998) Langershans cell histiocytosis of the spine: use of MRI in guiding biopsy. Skeletal Radiol 27:673–676

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Neuerburg JM, Adam G, Buecker A, Zilkens KW, Schmitz-Rode T, Hunter D, van Vaals JJ, Guenther RW (1998) MRI-guided biopsy of bone in a hybrid system. J Magn Reson Imaging 8:85–90

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Blanco-Sequeiros R, Klemola R, Ojala R, Jyrkinen L, Lappi-Blanco E, Soini Y, Tervonen O (2002) MRI-guided trephine biopsy and fine-needle aspiration in the diagnosis of bone lesions in low-field (0.23 T) MRI system using optical instrument tracking. Eur Radiol 12:830–835

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Alanen J, Keski-Nisula L, Laurila J, Suramo I, Standertskjöld-Nordenstam CG, Brommels M (1998) Costs of plain-film radiography in a partially digitized radiology department: an activity-based cost analysis. Acta Radiol 39:200–207

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Laurila J, Suramo I, Brommels M, Servo A, Kotikangas J, Standertskjöld-Nordenstam CG (2000) Diagnosis of meningioma: a comparison of costs before CT, during CT and after introduction of MR imaging. Acta Radiol 4:539–543

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Laurila J, Suramo I, Brommels M, Tolppanen E-M, Koivukangas P, Lanning P, Standertskjöld-Nordenstam CG (2000) Activity-based costing in radiology: application in a pediatric radiological unit. Acta Radiol 41:189–195

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Cohen MD, Hawes DR, Hutchins GR, McPhee WD, LaMasters MB, Fallon RP (2000) Activity-based cost analysis: a method of analysing the financial and operating performance of academic radiology departments. Radiology 215:708–716

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Enzmann DR, Anglada PM, Haviley C, Venta LA (2001) Providing professional mammography services: financial analysis. Radiology 219:467–473

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Saini S, Sharma R, Levine LA, Barmson RT, Jordan PF, Thrall JH (2001) Technical cost of CT examinations. Radiology 218:172–175

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Seiwart AJ, Wolfe J, Whalen RC, Pigott JP, Kritpracha B, Beebe HG (1999) Cost comparison of aortic aneurysm endografts vs open surgical repair. Am J Surg 178:117–120

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Marcy PY, Chevallier P, Granon C, Falewee MN, Bleuse A, Bruneton JN (1999) Cost-benefit analysis of percutaneous interventional radiological procedures in a cancer patients. Supp Care Cancer 7:365–367

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Bhatia RS, Collingwood P, Bartlett P (1998) Radiologic vs surgical placement of vena cava filters: a comparative study of costs, time and complications. Can Assoc Radiol J 49:79–83

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Laurila J, Brommels M, Standertskjöld-Nordenstam CG, Leinonen S, Lepäntalo M, Edgren J, Suramo I (2000) Cost-effectiveness of percutaneous transluminar angioplasty (PTA) vs vascular surgery in limb-threatening ischaemia. Int J Angiol 9:214–219

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Bosch JL, Haaring C, Meyerovitz MF, Cullen KA, Hunink MGM (2000) Cost-effectiveness of percutaneous treatment of iliac artery occlusive disease in the United States. Am J Roentgenol 175:517–521

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Silverman SG, Deuson TE, Kane N, Adams DF, Seltzer SE, Phillips MD, Khorasani R, Zinner MJ, Holman BL (1998) Percutaneous abdominal biopsy: cost-identification analysis. Radiology 206:429–435

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kliever MA, Sheafor DH, Paulson EK, Hertzberg BS, Nelson RC (1999) Percutaneous liver biopsy: a cost-benefit analysis comparing sonographic and CT guidance. Am J Roentgenol 173:1199–1202

    Google Scholar 

  26. Ruhs SA, El-Khoury GY, Chrischilles EA (1996) A cost minimization approach to the diagnosis of skeletal neoplasms. Skeletal Radiol 25:449–454

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Ward WG, Kilpatrick S (2000) Fine-needle aspiration biopsy of primary bone tumours. Clin Orthop Relat Res 373:80–87

    Google Scholar 

  28. Kaplan RS, Cooper R (1998) Cost and effect: using integrated cost systems to drive profitability and performance. Harvard Business School Press, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  29. Chan YC (1993) Improving hospital cost accounting with activity-based costing. Health Care Manage Rev 18:71–77

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Singer ME, Applegate KE (2001) Cost-effectiveness analysis in radiology. Radiology 219:611–620

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Geinaerdt MJ, Bloem JL, van der Woude HJ, Taminiau AH, Nooy MA, Hogendoorn PC (1998) Chondroblastic osteosarcoma: characterisation by gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging correlated with histopathology. Skeletal Radiol 27:145–153

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Parkkola RK, Mattila KT, Heikkilä JT, Ekfors TO, Kallajoki MA, Komu ME, Vaara TJ, Aro HT (2001). Dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging and MR-guided bone biopsy on a 0.23 T open imager. Skeletal Radiol 30:620–624

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Nawfel Rd, Judy PF, Silverman SG, Hooton S, Tuncali K, Adams DF (2000) Patient and personnel exposure during CT fluoroscopy-guided interventional procedures. Radiology 216:180–184

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Oulu University Hospital, PL 50, 90029, Oulu, Finland

    J. Alanen, R. Blanco-Sequeiros & O. Tervonen

  2. Department of Radiology, Tampere University Hospital, PL 2000, 33521, Tampere, Finland

    L. Keski-Nisula

Authors
  1. J. Alanen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. L. Keski-Nisula
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. R. Blanco-Sequeiros
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. O. Tervonen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. Alanen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Alanen, J., Keski-Nisula, L., Blanco-Sequeiros, R. et al. Cost comparison analysis of low-field (0.23 T) MRI- and CT-guided bone biopsies. Eur Radiol 14, 123–128 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-003-1960-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-003-1960-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation