Magnetic resonance imaging for elbow pathology: overused by both orthopedic surgeons and primary care providers

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) use by both orthopedic surgeons and primary care providers (PCP) for analysis of elbow pathology is expensive and growing in frequency. In light of this, scrutiny regarding the appropriate utilization of this technology is increasing. Currently, there is no literature investigating the appropriateness of MRI use for complex elbow pathology from either orthopedic surgeons or PCPs.

A retrospective chart review was performed on consecutive elbow MRIs performed at a tertiary care center between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2015. A total of 225 patients were included. Patients meeting the inclusion criteria were divided into two cohorts, determined by whether the ordering provider was an orthopedic surgeon or a PCP. MRI referrals were made by orthopedic surgeons in 94 patients and by nonorthopedic surgery providers in 131 patients. MRI diagnoses of no pathology, muscle/tendon tear, neuritis/nerve injury, tendinosis, ligament injury/instability, osteoarthritis/degenerative joint disease/decreased range of motion/contracture, or fracture/osteochondral injury were analyzed, as were the interventions of no intervention, nonprocedural treatment (therapy, orthosis, or nonoperative modality), nonsurgical procedure/referral for procedure, referral to surgeon, surgery, additional imaging/electrodiagnostic nerve testing, or other.

1. Orthopedic surgeons are more accurate in their diagnoses after MRI, while PCPs order more MRI scans for 'routine' diagnoses typically made without MRI. 2. When the MRI did not validate an orthopedic surgeon's preimaging diagnosis, rates of surgery decreased. The same discrepancy in diagnosis leads to an increase in orthopedic surgeon referrals within the PCP cohort. 3. An MRI was ordered for "pain" by orthopedic surgeons and PCPs in approximately 30% of the patients in both groups with a similarly low rate of pathology discovery.

The unexpected result of this study is that there is still a large quantity of MRI exams being conducted by orthopedic surgeons for the preMRI diagnosis of "pain." In both groups, there was a similar rate of negative imaging. We expected orthopedic surgeons who have advanced knowledge in musculoskeletal pathology would be less likely to order an MRI for pain and would also less likely order an MRI that resulted in no pathology. This places an increased and unnecessary burden on the financial aspect of the health care system.