Skip to main content
. 2016 Jul 18;7(7):426–433. doi: 10.5312/wjo.v7.i7.426

Table 2.

Comparison of computerized tomography based and magnetic resonance imaging based patient specific blocks

Computerized tomography based blocks Magnetic resonance imaging based blocks
Time for study Lesser (approximately 5 min) Longer (approximately 45 min)
Cost Economical Costlier
Radiation exposure Uses ionizing radiation. But focused hip-knee-ankle computerized tomography scanogram reduces exposure to 5 mSv (equal to yearly background exposure) Does not use ionizing radiation
Availability Easily available Not available at all centers
Patient turn over Useful for high patient turnover centers Not suitable for high patient turnover center
Contraindication Can be used in patient with any metal prosthesis in situ Cannot be used in patient with metal prosthesis or cardiac pacemaker in situ
Based on Bony landmarks Cartilage
Accuracy Comparable Comparable
Initial infrastructure set up cost Lower as compared to MRI High, non affordable for low volume centres
Claustrophobia No contraindication Can not be performed in claustrophobic patients

MRI: Magnetic resonance imaging.