Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-01T21:18:00.930Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Magnetic resonance imaging for vestibular schwannoma: cost-effective protocol for referrals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 October 2019

B A D Mettias*
Affiliation:
Department of ENT, Lister Hospital, Stevenage, UK
M Lyons
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Lister Hospital, Stevenage, UK
*
Author for correspondence: Dr Bassem A D Mettias, ENT Department, Lister Hospital, Corey's Mill Lane, Stevenage SG1 4AB, UK E-mail: bassemadel@hotmail.com

Abstract

Objective

Vestibular schwannoma is the most common neoplasm in the cerebellopontine angle, and fast spin-echo T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging is the most sensitive test for diagnosing it. This study evaluated the financial and time costs of unnecessary magnetic resonance imaging referrals before and after the application of a magnetic resonance imaging protocol.

Method

A full audit cycle was used for the assessment. The first cycle in January 2012 was retrospective and evaluated the financial impact of current selection criteria for magnetic resonance imaging referral against standard guidelines. The second cycle in January 2014 was prospective after implementation of the protocol.

Results

There were 46 and 112 patients who had magnetic resonance imaging during first and second cycle, respectively. Of the referrals for magnetic resonance imaging, 65 per cent versus 81 per cent of the referrals were appropriate in the first and second cycles, respectively. The relative risk was reduced from 0.5 to 0.2. The waiting times for magnetic resonance imaging scans improved.

Conclusion

Selection criteria for magnetic resonance imaging referral are important in reducing waiting times for scans, patient anxiety and conserving trust resources.

Type
Main Articles
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited, 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Dr B A D Mettias takes responsibility for the integrity of the content of the paper

Presented at the British Academic Conference in Otolaryngology, 8–10 July 2015, Liverpool, UK and at the National ENT Audit day, 23 November 2018, Nottingham, UK.

References

1Khrais, T, Romano, G, Sanna, M. Nerve origin of vestibular schwannoma: a prospective study. J Laryngol Otol 2008;122:128–31Google Scholar
2Moffat, DA, Hardy, DG, Baguley, DM. Strategy and benefits of acoustic neuroma searching. J Laryngol Otol 1989;103:51–9Google Scholar
3Van Dijk, JE, Duijndam, J, Graamans, K. Acoustic neuroma: deterioration of speech discrimination related to thresholds in pure-tone audiometry. Acta Otolaryngol 2000;120:627–32Google Scholar
4Bagger-Sjöbäck, D, Rask-Andersen, H. Pathology of the vestibular system. In: Gleeson, M, ed. Scott Brown's Otohinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, 7th edn. London: Hodder Arnold, 2008;3:3687–8Google Scholar
5British Association of Otorhinolaryngologists – Head and Neck Surgeons. Clinical Effectiveness Guidelines. Acoustic Neuroma. London: British Association of Otorhinolaryngologists – Head and Neck Surgeons, 2002Google Scholar
6Robson, AK, Leighton, SE, Anslow, P, Milford, CA. MRI as a single screening procedure for acoustic neuroma: a cost-effective protocol. J R Soc Med 1993;86:455–7Google Scholar
7Daniels, RL, Shelton, C, Harnsberger, HR. Ultra high resolution nonenhanced fast spin echo magnetic resonance imaging: cost-effective screening for acoustic neuroma in patients with sudden sensorineural hearing loss. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1998;119:364–9Google Scholar
8Hearing loss in adults: assessment and management. NICE guidelines. In: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng98 [3 December 2018]Google Scholar
9Gimsing, S. Vestibular schwannoma: when to look for it? J Laryngol Otol 2010;124:258–64Google Scholar
10Al-Barki, AA, Hudise, JY, Malik, N, Junaid, M, Almothahbi, A. Role of MRI in audio-vestibular dysfunction; is it cost-effective? Int J Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2018;4:80–2Google Scholar
11Obholzer, RJ, Rea, PA, Harcourt, JP. Magnetic resonance imaging screening for vestibular schwannoma: analysis of published protocols. J Laryngol Otol 2004;118:329–32Google Scholar
12Cueva, RA. Auditory brainstem response versus magnetic resonance imaging for the evaluation of asymmetric sensorineural hearing loss. Laryngoscope 2004;114:1686–92Google Scholar
13Hentschel, M, Scholte, M, Steens, S, Kunst, H, Rovers, M. The diagnostic accuracy of non-imaging screening protocols for vestibular schwannoma in patients with asymmetrical hearing loss and/or unilateral audiovestibular dysfunction: a diagnostic review and meta-analysis. Clin Otolaryngol 2017;42:815–23Google Scholar
14Sheppard, IJ, Milford, CA, Anslow, P. MRI in the detection of acoustic neuromas – a suggested protocol for screening. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 1996;21:301–4Google Scholar
15Mirko, tos. Natural history of vestibular schwannoma. In: Gleeson, M, ed. Scott Brown's Otohinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, 7th edn. London: Hodder Arnold, 2008:3959Google Scholar
16Gandolfi, MM, Reilly, EK, Galatioto, J, Judson, RB, Kim, AH. Cost-effective analysis of unilateral vestibular weakness investigation. Otol Neurotol 2015;36:277–81Google Scholar
17Mcllveen, ECS, Koo Ng, NKF, Murray, A. Benefit to quality of life of normal MRI IAM when investigating for vestibular schwannoma using Glasgow benefit inventory. Int J Surg 2013;11:636Google Scholar