Comparing the cost of spinal MR with conventional myelography and radiculography

Summary

All spinal magnetic resonance imaging examinations carried out during a three month period were analysed retrospectively in order to determine the clinical reasons for the scan requests. Technical details of the examinations they received and the clinical profiles formed a data set which revealed 10 separate “Clinical groups” for management purposes. Hardware, salary and expendables were costed as though the imaging unit had been sited within a National Health Service radiology department. A spread sheet was designed capable of calculating costs per patient for a variety of types of working week and of different staffing structures, sensitive to the mixture of clinical groups referred for examination. The spreadsheet also accomodated straight line depreciation for hardware value and interest rates for borrowed capital. A second, prospectively observed, sample of spinal MR examinations was used to improve the accuracy of the timing of the length of patient examinations. Costs were compared with those for patients submitted for myelography and radiculography at the adjacent hospital during the same period. The comparison indicated that spinal MR was less costly than myelography and radiculography. The most important element of the extra cost of myelography related to the need to admit patients to hospital for at least one night for this examination because of the likelihood of headache and other common (though usually minor) complications following lumbar puncture and/or the injection of contrast medium. From the limited information that it was possible to obtain in the period of follow up, it appeared that MR had either been superior or equivalent to myelography or radiculography in all the clinical groups of patients where both could be tested. There were a number of groups in which no myelograms had been requested, presumably because clinical suspicions had pointed toward conditions like tumours, developmental abnormalities and demyelinating diseases in which neurologists and neurosurgeons have already made up their minds about the superiority of MR.