Search

Clinical practice guidelines intended to reduce unnecessary cervical spine imaging have yielded mixed results. We aimed to assess evolving emergency department (ED) cervical spine imaging utilization in patients with trauma by injury severity.Using 2009 to 2018 IBM MarketScan Commercial Databases, we identified ED trauma encounters, associated cervical spine imaging, and related diagnosis codes. We classified encounters by injury severity (minor, intermediate, major) using an International Classification of Disease code-derived Injury Severity Score algorithm and studied evolving imaging utilization using multivariable Poisson regression models.Of all 11,346,684 ED visits for trauma, 7,753,914 (68.3%), 3,524,250 (31.1%), and 68,520 (0.6%) involved minor, intermediate, and major injuries, respectively. Overall cervical spine imaging increased 5.7% annually (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 1.057, P.001) with radiography decreasing 2.7% annually (IRR 0.973, P.001) and CT increasing 10.5% annually (IRR 1.105, P.001). Radiography utilization remained unchanged for minor injuries (IRR 0.994, P = .14) but decreased for intermediate (IRR 0.928 versus minor, P.001) and major (IRR 0.931 versus minor, P.001) injuries. Increases in CT utilization were greatest for minor injuries (IRR 1.109, P.001) with smaller increases in intermediate (IRR 0.960 versus minor, P.001) and major (IRR 0.987 versus minor, P = .022) injuries.Recent increases in cervical spine imaging in commercially insured patients with trauma seen in the ED have been largely related to increases in CT for patients with only minor injuries, in whom imaging utilization has been historically low. Further study is necessary to assess appropriateness, implications on costs and population radiation dose, and factors influencing ordering decision making.

The objective of our study was to assess temporal changes in the utilization of musculoskeletal extremity imaging in Medicare beneficiaries over a recent 20-year period (1994-2013).Medicare Physician Supplier Procedure Summary Master Files from 1994 through 2013 were used to study changing utilization and utilization rates of the four most common musculoskeletal imaging modalities: radiography, MRI, CT, and ultrasound.Utilization rates (per 1000 beneficiaries) for all four musculoskeletal extremity imaging modalities increased over time: 43% (from 441.7 to 633.6) for radiography, 615% (5.4-38.6) for MRI, 758% (1.2-10.3) for CT, and 500% (1.8-10.8) for ultrasound. Radiologists were the most common billing specialty group for all modalities throughout the 20-year period, maintaining dominant market shares for MRI and CT (84% and 96% in 2013). In recent years, the second most common billing group was orthopedic surgery for radiography, MRI, and CT and podiatry for ultrasound. The physician office was the most common site of service for radiography, MRI, and ultrasound, whereas the hospital outpatient and inpatient settings were the most common sites for CT.In the Medicare population, the most common musculoskeletal extremity imaging modalities increased substantially in utilization over the 2-decade period from 1994 through 2013. Throughout that time, radiology remained the most common billing specialty, and the physician office and hospital outpatient settings remained the most common sites of service. These insights may have implications for radiology practice leaders in making decisions regarding capital infrastructure, workforce, and training investments to ensure the provision of optimal imaging services for extremity musculoskeletal care.

Rapidly rising health care costs coupled with variability in pricing and patient service have led to intense public scrutiny and pressure for health care providers to demonstrate value. Recent changes in legislation and payment models have intensified a shift from volume-based to value-based care, transferring risk from payers to providers. The American College of Radiology's Imaging 3.0 initiative encourages radiologists to become leaders in this changing health care landscape, helping to redefine value relative to health outcomes that matter to patients. Finding value and areas for improvement can prove difficult. However, through the imaging value chain, a plethora of opportunities are easily identifiable. It will be critical for musculoskeletal radiologists to leverage information technology and develop meaningful metrics to assess and demonstrate imaging's contribution to improved patient outcomes and reduction in costs, and to advocate for appropriate reimbursement.

Purpose The aim of this study was to assess the changing use of emergency department (ED) cervical spine imaging in the Medicare population. Methods Using national aggregate Medicare claims data from 1994 through 2012, all cervical spine radiographic, CT, and MR examinations performed in the ED setting were identified. Shifts in modalities and providers and changes in utilization rates were studied. Results Between 1994 and 2004, ED cervical spine radiography volumes in the Medicare fee-for-service population increased from 203,645 to 306,442 (+50.5%) and then declined to 152,755 (−50.2%) by 2012. CT volumes increased every year, overall by +8,864% from 1994 through 2012 (from 6,360 to 570,121). MR grew by +1,381%, but volumes overall were small (from 944 to 13,979). With these changes, CT overtook radiography as the dominant ED cervical spine imaging modality in 2007. Per 1,000 Medicare beneficiaries, utilization rates of radiography, CT, and MR changed by −27%, +8,682%, and +1,351% from 1994 through 2012 (from 6.3 to 4.6, from 0.2 to 17.3, and from 0.0 to 0.4). For all years, compared with other specialists, radiologists remained by far the dominant providers of radiography, CT, and MR (+91.7%, +93.4%, and +96.0% in 1994 and +96.9%, +99.3%, and +99.0% in 2012) in the ED setting. Conclusions Between 1994 and 2012, the overall utilization rate of cervical spine imaging for Medicare beneficiaries in the ED setting more than tripled. With a small decline in radiography (–27%) but a dramatic increase in CT (+8,864%), CT is now by far the dominant modality for imaging the cervical spine in the ED. Radiologists remain overwhelmingly the dominant providers of these interpretive services.

The ability to deliver cells in appropriate doses to their targeted site of action is a well-known obstacle to optimising stem cell therapy. Systemic administration of cells results in pulmonary "trapping," which significantly decreases the number of available circulating cells to impact underlying disorders. Directed delivery of stem cells in interventional radiology may provide an additional option for bypassing the lungs, as well as introduce novel potential avenues for decreasing doses required to effect cellular therapy, efficiently obtain local paracrine effects, and/or to simplify targeting strategies.

Although most musculoskeletal MRI examinations are interpreted by radiologists, some nonradiologists provide interpretations as well. We aimed to study day of week (weekday vs weekend), site of service, and patient complexity differences between radiologists and nonradiologists interpreting lower extremity MRI examinations on Medicare beneficiaries.Using fee-for-service carrier claims for a 5% sample of Medicare beneficiaries nationally from 2012 through 2014, we identified all lower extremity joint MRI examinations. Services were classified by physician specialty, day of week, and site of service. Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) values were calculated for all patients. Chi-square statistical testing was performed.Of all 125,800 billed lower extremity joint MRI examinations, 118,295 (94.0%) were performed on weekdays and 7505 (6.0%) on weekends. Of the weekday examinations, radiologists interpreted 85,991 (83.3%) and nonradiologists 17,260 (16.7%). Of the weekend examinations, radiologists interpreted 6212 (92.8%) and nonradiologists 485 (7.2%). Of examinations performed in inpatient hospital and emergency department settings, radiologists interpreted 6499 (99.2%) and nonradiologists 51 (0.8%). Of the examinations on the most clinically complex patients (CCI ≥ 3), radiologists interpreted 4228 (90.2%) and nonradiologists 461 (9.8%). All interspecialty differences were statistically significant (p0.001).In the Medicare population, radiologists interpret most lower extremity joint MRI examinations. Compared with nonradiologists, radiologists disproportionately provide services on weekends, in the highest acuity settings, and on the most clinically complex patients. To promote patient access and minimize disparities, future pay-for-performance metrics should consider temporal, acuity, and complexity parameters.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Although most neuroimaging examinations are interpreted by radiologists, many nonradiologists provide interpretation services. We studied day of the week, site of service, and patient complexity differences for common Medicare MR neuroimaging examinations interpreted by radiologists versus nonradiologists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using carrier claims files for a 5% sample of Medicare beneficiaries from 2012 to 2014, we identified all claims for brain and lumbar spine MR imaging examinations. Services were categorized by physician specialty, day of the week, and the site of service. Patient complexity was calculated using Charlson Comorbidity Indices. The χ(2) was performed to test statistical significance. RESULTS: A provider specialty could be identified for 568,423 brain and lumbar spine MR imaging examinations. Of weekday examinations, radiologists interpreted 475,288 (92.3%), and nonradiologists, 39,510 (7.7%). Of weekend examinations, radiologists interpreted 52,028 (97.0%) and nonradiologists 1597 (3.0%). Radiologists interpreted 145,904 (98.7%) examinations in the inpatient hospital and emergency department settings versus 1882 (1.3%) by nonradiologists. Of all examinations, 44,547 of those interpreted by radiologists (8.4%) were on the most clinically complex patients versus 2139 (5.2%) for nonradiologists. All interspecialty differences for day of the week, the site of service, and patient complexity were statistically significant (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Although radiologists interpret most common MR neuroimaging examinations for Medicare beneficiaries, in contrast to nonradiologists, they disproportionately render those services on weekends, in higher acuity sites, and on more complex patients. To optimize access and minimize disparities in necessary neuroimaging, quality metrics should consider such service characteristics.

The purpose of this study is to identify the specialty characteristics of providers referring musculoskeletal (MSK) extremity imaging examinations to radiologists, so as to better understand the drivers of MSK imaging utilization and potentially improve the appropriateness of such imaging examinations.Data on provider referral for MSK extremity imaging services were extracted from the 2014 Medicare Referring Provider Utilization for Procedures public use file, which aggregates data on diagnostic procedures according to referring provider identities and service codes. MSK extremity imaging services were identified using Neiman Institute Types of Service codes. The referring provider specialty was identified from cross-linked Medicare provider characteristics files.For 4,275,647 MSK extremity imaging examinations ordered, the most common specialties of the referring providers were orthopedic surgery (37.6% of ordered examinations), internal medicine (20.2%), family practice (14.8%), emergency medicine (7.9%), and rheumatology (5.7%). Orthopedic surgery was the referring specialty that most commonly ordered MSK extremity CT (33,465 ordered examinations; for all other specialties,2000 examinations), MRI (325,485 examinations; for all other specialities,20,000 examinations), and radiography (1,249,748 examinations; for all other specialities,850,000 examinations), whereas internal medicine was the referring specialty that most commonly ordered MSK extremity ultrasound examinations (8052 ordered examinations; for all other specialties,6000 examinations). Among the select specialties most relevant to MSK imaging, the most frequent referrers after orthopedic surgeons were rheumatologists, for radiography (236,057 ordered examinations) and ultrasound (2034 examinations), and podiatrists, for CT (1201 examinations) and MRI (19,159 examinations). The most commonly ordered individual MSK extremity imaging services were knee radiography, with 190,354 examinations ordered by orthopedic surgeons; hand radiography, with 66,167 examinations ordered by rheumatologists; foot radiography, with 137,042 examinations ordered by podiatrists; shoulder radiography, with 11,299 examinations ordered by sports medicine specialists; and hip radiography, with 9838 examinations ordered by physiatrists.Referral patterns for MSK imaging vary considerably by provider specialty. Referral pattern insights may guide targeted efforts by radiologists to ensure the appropriateness of such examinations.

To prospectively evaluate percutaneous image-guided nerve cryoablation for treatment of refractory phantom limb pain (PLP) in a pilot cohort for purposes of deriving parameters to design a larger, randomized, parallel-armed, controlled trial.From January 2015 to January 2016, 21 patients with refractory PLP underwent image-guided percutaneous cryoneurolysis procedures. Visual analog scale scores were documented at baseline and 7, 45, and 180 days after the procedure. Responses to a modified Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire were documented at baseline and 7 and 45 days after the procedure.Technical success rate of the procedures was 100%. There were 6 (29%) minor procedure-related complications. Disability scores decreased from a baseline mean of 11.3 to 3.3 at 45-day follow-up (95% confidence interval 5.8, 10.3; P.0001). Pain intensity scores decreased from a baseline mean of 6.2 to 2.0 at long-term follow-up (95% confidence interval 2.8, 5.6; P.0001).Image-guided percutaneous nerve cryoablation is feasible and safe and may represent a new efficacious therapeutic option for patients with phantom pains related to limb loss.

The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic utility of MRI and MR arthrography for ligamentum teres tears in patients with hip pain.This is a retrospective study involving 187 patients who underwent MRI or MR arthrography for hip pain. This study included 103 male and 84 female patients with average age of 39 years. Three experienced musculoskeletal radiologists reviewed the MRI and MR arthrography studies to assess the ligamentum teres tears. The criteria for diagnosing normal or abnormal (i.e., ligament), partial or degenerative or complete tear of ligamentum teres were defined on the basis of several imaging characteristics. The MRI and MR arthrography results were correlated with arthroscopy, which served as the reference standard. Statistical analysis was performed to calculate the diagnostic yield, diagnostic accuracy, and diagnostic performance of MRI and MR arthrography in detecting partial or degenerative and complete ligamentum teres tears. Overall comparative performance of MRI and MR arthrography was assessed using Kruskal-Wallis test.For partial ligamentum teres tears, MRI showed lower sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value (0.41, 0.75, and 0.32, respectively) as compared to MR arthrography (0.83, 0.93, and 0.76, respectively), whereas the negative predictive value of MRI (0.82) was comparable to that of MR arthrography (0.95). No statistically significant difference (p0.05) could be identified between MRI and MR arthrography for diagnosing complete ligamentum teres tears.Hip MRI is equally suited for diagnosis of complete ligamentum teres tears when compared with MR arthrography. By contrast, for partial or degenerative ligamentum teres tears, MR arthrography offers the advantage of better arthroscopic correlation.