Published December 2016 | Version v1
Journal article

Comparative analysis of anterior and posterior contrast injection approaches for shoulder MR arthrograms in adolescents

  • 1. The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Division of Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology, Philadelphia, PA (United States)
  • 2. The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Department of Radiology, Philadelphia, PA (United States)
  • 3. Stanford University Medical Center, Diagnostic Radiology, Palo Alto, CA (United States)
  • 4. The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Musculoskeletal Imaging, Department of Radiology, Philadelphia, PA (United States)

Description

There is no consensus in the literature concerning the optimal approach for performing a fluoroscopically guided shoulder arthrogram injection in a pediatric population. To compare adequacy of capsular injection and radiation doses between fluoroscopically guided anterior and posterior glenohumeral joint contrast injections in adolescents. We evaluated imaging in 67 adolescents (39 boys, 28 girls; mean age 16.0 years; range 11.7-19.1 years) who underwent an anterior approach glenohumeral contrast injection with subsequent MR imaging, and 67 age- and gender-matched subjects (39 boys, 28 girls; mean age 16.0 years; range 11.1-19.2 years) who underwent a posterior approach injection during the period June 2010 to September 2015. Two pediatric radiologists independently evaluated all MR shoulder arthrograms to assess adequacy of capsular distention and degree of contrast extravasation. We recorded total fluoroscopic time, dose-area product (DAP) and cumulative air kerma (CAK). There were no significant differences in age, gender, height, weight or body mass index between the populations (P-values > 0.6). The amount of contrast extravasation between the groups was not significantly different (P = 0.27). Three anterior injections (4.5%) and one posterior (1.5%) were suboptimal (P = 0.62). Fluoroscopy time was not different: 1.1 min anterior and 1.3 min posterior (P = 0.14). There was a significant difference in CAK (0.7 mGy anterior and 1.1 mGy posterior; P = 0.007) and DAP (5.3 μGym2 anterior and 9.4 μGym2 posterior; P = 0.008). Inter-rater agreement was excellent (Cohen kappa >0.81). Both techniques were technically successful. There was no difference in the fluoroscopy time for either approach. The radiation dose was higher with the posterior approach but this is of questionable clinical significance. (orig.)

Availability note (English)

Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00247-016-3691-y

Additional details

Identifiers

Publishing Information

Journal Title
Pediatric Radiology
Journal Volume
46
Journal Issue
13
Journal Page Range
p. 1848-1855
ISSN
0301-0449
CODEN
PDRYA5