Radiology, Vol 204, 33-37, Copyright © 1997 by Radiological Society of North America

ARTICLES

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

EM Remer, BR Herts, SB Streem, DP Hesselink, DA Shiesly, AJ Yost and ME Baker
Division of Radiology, The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, OH 44195, USA.

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.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				L. S. Medina, E. Aguirre, B. Bernal, and N. R. Altman Functional MR Imaging versus Wada Test for Evaluation of Language Lateralization: Cost Analysis Radiology, January 1, 2004; 230(1): 49 - 54. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				O. Catalano, A. Nunziata, F. Altei, and A. Siani Suspected Ureteral Colic: Primary Helical CT Versus Selective Helical CT After Unenhanced Radiography and Sonography Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2002; 178(2): 379 - 387. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. E. Singer and K. E. Applegate Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Radiology Radiology, June 1, 2001; 219(3): 611 - 620. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. H. Sheafor, B. S. Hertzberg, K. S. Freed, B. A. Carroll, M. T. Keogan, E. K. Paulson, D. M. DeLong, and R. C. Nelson Nonenhanced Helical CT and US in the Emergency Evaluation of Patients with Renal Colic: Prospective Comparison Radiology, December 1, 2000; 217(3): 792 - 797. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				G. D. Rubin, M. D. Armerding, M. D. Dake, and S. Napel Cost Identification of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Imaging by Using Time and Motion Analyses Radiology, April 1, 2000; 215(1): 63 - 70. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				K. A. B. Fowler, J. A. Locken, J. H. Duchesne, and M. R. Williamson US for Detecting Renal Calculi with Nonenhanced CT as a Reference Standard Radiology, January 1, 2002; 222(1): 109 - 113. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]