These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Treatment of osteoid osteoma using CT-guided radiofrequency ablation versus MR-guided laser ablation: a cost comparison.
    Author: Maurer MH, Gebauer B, Wieners G, De Bucourt M, Renz DM, Hamm B, Streitparth F.
    Journal: Eur J Radiol; 2012 Nov; 81(11):e1002-6. PubMed ID: 22901712.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: To compare the costs of CT-guided radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and MR-guided laser ablation (LA) for minimally invasive percutaneous treatment of osteoid osteoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between November 2005 and October 2011, 20 patients (14 males, 6 females, mean age 20.3±9.1 years) underwent CT-guided RFA and 24 patients (18 males, 6 females; mean age, 23.8±13.8 years) MR-guided LA (open 1.0 Tesla, Panorama HFO, Philips, Best, Netherlands) for osteoid osteoma diagnosed on the basis of clinical presentation and imaging findings. Prorated costs of equipment use (purchase, depreciation, and maintenance), staff costs, and expenditure for disposables were identified for CT-guided RFA and MR-guided LA procedures. RESULTS: The average total costs per patient were EUR 1762 for CT-guided RFA and EUR 1417 for MR-guided LA. These were (RFA/LA) EUR 92/260 for equipment use, EUR 149/208 for staff, and EUR 870/300 for disposables. CONCLUSION: MR-guided LA is less expensive than CT-guided RFA for minimally invasive percutaneous ablation of osteoid osteoma. The higher costs of RFA are primarily due to the higher price of the disposable RFA probes.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]