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

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.

Cost effectiveness of coronary angiography and calcium scoring using CT and stress MRI for diagnosis of coronary artery disease

“…The economic efficiency of medical strategies from the perspective of society has become increasingly important worldwide [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]. In the cost-effectiveness analysis presented here we examined new non-invasive modalities and the most common traditional approaches to the diagnosis of CAD.…”

“…Cost-effectiveness analyses for new imaging modalities have become increasingly important worldwide [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]. Especially, non-invasive cardiac imaging using multislice computed tomography (MSCT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is evolving rapidly [13][14][15][16][17] and is also gaining acceptance among referring physicians and patients.…”

MRI-Guided and CT-Guided Cervical Nerve Root Infiltration Therapy: A Cost Comparison

“…There is potential to further reduce the fixed costs per intervention, e. g. by increasing the number of treatments or by sharing equipment usage with other departments, such as the orthopedic department in our hospital and with research groups. Alanen et al [26] compared the costs for bone biopsies under CT guidance and MRI guidance using a 0.23-Tesla low-field MRI system. The authors calculated only 1.82 times higher average equipment usage costs for MRI-guided interventions compared to CT guidance.…”

“…Alanen et al [26] found significantly greater differences in a cost comparison of CT-guided and MRI-guided bone biopsies with 5.57 times higher costs for MRI-compatible disposables. Primarily the cost of MRI-compatible injection cannulas is currently still several times higher (EUR 25 vs. 3, factor 8.2,…”

“…The use of open MRI systems does not expose patients and personnel to radiation, provides comfortable access for the interventionalist, and receives a high degree of acceptance from patients [24,25]. Despite these advantages, the use of MRI for treatment guidance has not yet been able to become widely established which may be due on the one hand to the still minimal availability of open MRI systems as well as to the bias that the use of MRI necessarily entails higher costs due to the higher equipment costs, longer intervention times, and expensive MRI-compatible disposables [26]. However, a considerable reduction in the price of MRI-compatible injection cannulas has been seen in recent years.…”