Andrews and Others on MRI's

quote:

Originally posted by Texas1836:
Article in Saturday's paper regarding overuse of MRI's, the link is below.

"So he scanned the shoulders of 31 perfectly healthy professional baseball pitchers.
The pitchers were not injured and had no pain. But the M.R.I.’s found abnormal shoulder cartilage in 90 percent of them and abnormal rotator cuff tendons in 87 percent. “If you want an excuse to operate on a pitcher’s throwing shoulder, just get an M.R.I.,” Dr. Andrews says"

The article points out that there is a fine line between appropriate use and over use.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10...?scp=2&sq=mri&st=cse

Interesting article. Thanks for posting it.

I agree.. interesting article. It's something I've actually been hearing for some time. It's crucial that a proper examination and history is completed. Those need to match up with what the imaging is saying...

The sports doc that treated my son said basically the same thing.

Just like many patients go to the Doctor with a cold or a virus, and demand antibiotics, many are doing the same with injuries and MRI's.

In my son's case, a MRI was the last thing they did. It actually showed a broken bone in his foot that they couldn't see on the X-Ray.

A few years back we insisted on a MRI for lingering pain in the forearm and ended up having to pay for it ourselves. The cash cost was about the same as going through insurance.

The radiologist's report came back saying he had a partially torn distal brachialis tendon so we took him to a top specialist who happened to take our insurance. He along with the radiologist at Kerlan-Jobe determined that it was a minor brachialis muscle tear and prescribed lots and lots of NSAIDs. The NSAIDs knock down the inflammation and also reduce the chances of bone formation that come along with brachialis tears. The pain seems to have come from a nerve issue resulting in part from the underlying inflammation.

I don't know if the MRI was really necessary but it did get us to the specialist he needed to see.

I haven't heard that there are any cancer risks due to MRI's. CT scans especially over large areas can certainly add to radiation dosage and therefore cancer risk.

quote:

CT scans especially over large areas can certainly add to radiation dosage and therefore cancer risk.

Isn't there radiation involved in MRIs as well?

Bulldog19,
Radiation is everywhere, but the "radiation" that we normally worry about is "ionizing" radiation that can damage molecules. We usually think of radiation which has a wavelength that is shorter than visible light to be ionizing. For example, a person can get sunburned by UV light, and more damaged by X-rays, and even more so by the the very short wavelengths associated with fission products.

A CT scan uses X-rays to probe the body, and the analytical signal is the attenuation of these X-rays. It definitely has the potential to damage a person's body, so one doesn't do these every day. (An ordinary X-ray to look for broken bones or dental cavities has a much shorter exposure time, and so is not really a concern.)

A MRI uses a magnetic field operating at RF frequency (radio waves). The wavelength of RF is much longer than visible light, and is not considered to be ionizing. MRIs are believed to be quite safe.