Spiral noncontrast CT versus combined plain radiography and renal US after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: Cost-identification analysis

被引:20
作者
Remer, EM [1 ]
Herts, BR [1 ]
Streem, SB [1 ]
Hesselink, DP [1 ]
Shiesly, DA [1 ]
Yost, AJ [1 ]
Baker, ME [1 ]
机构
[1] CLEVELAND CLIN FDN,DEPT UROL,CLEVELAND,OH 44195
关键词
cost-effectiveness; kidney; radiography; US; lithotripsy;
D O I
10.1148/radiology.204.1.9205219
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
PURPOSE: To investigate the costs of spiral computed tomography (CT) versus those of combined plain radiography and renal ultrasound (US) in screening for postprocedural complications after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-five adult patients who had undergone ESWL were prospectively examined with spiral CT, renal US, and plain abdominal radiography. Each examination was timed, and direct technical costs were calculated by using a procedural-based cost-accounting system. The combined cost of US and plain radiography was compared with the cost of spiral CT. RESULTS: The average time for spiral CT was 15.3 minutes compared with 37.2 minutes for combined US and plain radiography. The direct technical cost of spiral CT was $36.86 compared with $57.60 for combined US and plain radiography. Average examination times were varied to assess the effect on overall costs. Within reasonable time ranges, combined US and plain radiography cannot be cost equivalent to spiral CT. CONCLUSION: Spiral CT is faster and is associated with less direct technical cost than combined US and plain radiography when used to examine patients after ESWL, given the dependence of this model on time of examination. Further studies are needed to assess the relative accuracy of these alternative approaches.
引用
收藏
页码:33 / 37
页数:5
相关论文
共 14 条
[1]   Case for active physician involvement in US practice [J].
Chan, V ;
Hanbidge, A ;
Wilson, S ;
Pron, G ;
Moore, L .
RADIOLOGY, 1996, 199 (02) :555-560
[2]   ABDOMINAL RADIOGRAPH AND RENAL ULTRASOUND VERSUS EXCRETORY UROGRAPHY IN THE EVALUATION OF ASYMPTOMATIC PATIENTS AFTER EXTRACORPOREAL SHOCK-WAVE LITHOTRIPSY [J].
COUGHLIN, BF ;
RISIUS, B ;
STREEM, SB ;
LORIG, RJ ;
SIEGEL, SW .
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 1989, 142 (06) :1419-1424
[3]   DETERMINATION OF SPIRAL CT SLICE SENSITIVITY PROFILES USING A POINT RESPONSE PHANTOM [J].
DAVROS, WJ ;
HERTS, BR ;
WALMSLEY, JJ ;
OBUCHOWSKI, NA .
JOURNAL OF COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY, 1995, 19 (05) :838-843
[4]   THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN COST AND CHARGES [J].
FINKLER, SA .
ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 1982, 96 (01) :102-109
[5]  
KRISCHNER CG, 1996, PHYSICIANS CURRENT P
[6]  
KRYSIEWICZ S, 1992, UROL RADIOL, V13, P139
[7]   AN ICONOCLASTIC VIEW OF HEALTH COST CONTAINMENT [J].
NEWHOUSE, JP .
HEALTH AFFAIRS, 1993, 12 :152-171
[8]   THE COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF RADIOLOGY AND RADIOLOGISTS [J].
PARKER, RG .
RADIOLOGY, 1993, 189 (02) :363-369
[9]   Comparing competing medical procedures: Costs or charges - What should it matter? [J].
Picus, D .
RADIOLOGY, 1996, 199 (03) :623-624
[10]   ECONOMIC AND COST-EFFECTIVENESS INVESTIGATIONS OF RADIOLOGIC PRACTICES [J].
POWE, NR .
RADIOLOGY, 1994, 192 (01) :11-18