Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 22, 2025
Thermal Ablation for the Treatment of Abdominal Tumors
Published on: March 7, 2011
Time-Driven Activity-Based Cost Comparison of Osteoid Osteoma Ablation Techniques
Joseph Reis1, Kevin S H Koo2, Giri M Shivaram2
1Director of Interventional Radiology Enteric Access Service, Department of Radiology, Seattle Children's Hospital, Seattle, Washington; Co-Medical Director of Vascular Access Service, and Medical Director of Clinical Strategy in Radiology, Department of Radiology, Seattle Children's Hospital, Seattle, Washington; Section Chief of Pediatric Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology, Seattle Children's Hospital, Seattle, Washington.
Objective:
Compare the cost of performing an osteoid osteoma ablation using cone beam CT (CBCT) with overlay fluoroscopic guidance to ablation using conventional CT (CCT) guidance and microwave ablation (MWA) to radiofrequency ablation (RFA).
Methods:
An 11-year retrospective study was performed of all patients undergoing osteoid osteoma ablation. Ablation equipment included a Cool tip RFA probe (Covidien, Minneapolis, Minnesota) or a Neuwave PR MWA probe (Ethicon, Rariton, New Jersey). The room times as well as immediate recovery time were recorded for each case. Cost analysis was then performed using time-driven activity-based costing for rate-dependent variables including salaries, equipment depreciation, room time, and certain supplies. Time-independent costs included the disposable interventional radiology supplies and ablation systems. Costs were reported for each service providing care and using conventional cost accounting methods with variable and fixed expenditures.
Results:
A total of 91 patients underwent 96 ablation procedures in either CBCT (n = 66) or CCT (n = 30) using either MWA (n = 51) or RFA (n = 45). The anesthesia induction (22.7 ± 8.7 min versus 15.9 ± 7.2 min, P < .001), procedure (64.7 ± 27.5 min versus 47.3 ± 15.3 min; P = .001), and room times (137.7 ± 33.7 min versus 103.9 ± 22.6. min; P < .001) were significantly longer for CBCT procedures. The procedure time did not differ significantly between MWA and RFA (62.1 ± 27.4 min versus 56.1 ± 23.3 min; P = .27). Multiple regression analysis demonstrated lower age (P = .046), CBCT use (P = .001), RFA use (P = .02), and nonsupine patient position (P = .01) significantly increased the total procedural cost. After controlling for these variables, the total cost of CBCT ($5,981.32 ± $523.93 versus $5,378.93 ± $453.12; P = .001) remained higher than CCT and the total cost of RFA ($5,981.32 ± $523.93 versus $5,674.43 ± $549.14; P = .05) approached a higher cost than MWA.
Conclusion:
The use of CBCT with overlay fluoroscopic guidance for osteoid osteoma ablation resulted in longer in-room times and greater cost when compared with CCT. These cost considerations should be weighed against potential radiation dose advantage of CBCT when choosing an image guidance modality. Younger age, RFA use, and nonsupine patient position additionally contributed to higher costs.
