Abstract
Background
There is no consensus in the literature concerning the optimal approach for performing a fluoroscopically guided shoulder arthrogram injection in a pediatric population.
Objective
To compare adequacy of capsular injection and radiation doses between fluoroscopically guided anterior and posterior glenohumeral joint contrast injections in adolescents.
Materials and methods
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).
Results
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).
Conclusion
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Perdikakis E, Drakonaki E, Maris T et al (2013) MR arthrography of the shoulder: tolerance evaluation of four different injection techniques. Skelet Radiol 42:99–105
Larson DB, Rader SB, Forman HP et al (2007) Informing parents about CT radiation exposure in children: it’s OK to tell them. AJR Am J Roentgenol 189:271–275
Messina C, Banfi G, Aliprandi A et al (2016) Ultrasound guidance to perform intra-articular injection of gadolinium-based contrast material for magnetic resonance arthrography as an alternative to fluoroscopy: the time is now. Eur Radiol 26:1221–1225
Daley EL, Bajaj S, Bisson LJ et al (2011) Improving injection accuracy of the elbow, knee, and shoulder: does injection site and imaging make a difference? A systematic review. Am J Sports Med 39:656–662
Catalano OA, Manfredi R, Vanzulli A et al (2007) MR arthrography of the glenohumeral joint: modified posterior approach without imaging guidance. Radiology 242:550–554
Redondo MV, Berna-Serna JD, Campos PA et al (2008) MR arthrography of the shoulder using an anterior approach: optimal injection site. AJR Am J Roentgenol 191:1397–1400
Adriaensen ME, Ertl OT, Laar PJ et al (2014) A motive for the use of a posterior approach in shoulder arthography: ventral leakage of contrast medium. Acta Radiol 55:450–453
Shortt CP, Morrison WB, Roberts CC et al (2009) Shoulder, hip, and knee arthrography needle placement using fluoroscopic guidance: practice patterns of musculoskeletal radiologists in North America. Skelet Radiol 38:377–385
Ogul H, Bayraktutan U, Ozgokce M et al (2014) Ultrasound-guided shoulder MR arthrography: comparison of rotator interval and posterior approach. Clin Imaging 38:11–17
Farmer KD, Hughes PM (2002) MR arthrography of the shoulder: fluoroscopically guided technique using a posterior approach. AJR Am J Roentgenol 178:433–434
Chung CB, Dwek JR, Feng S et al (2001) MR arthrography of the glenohumeral joint: a tailored approach. AJR Am J Roentgenol 177:217–219
Koivikko MP, Mustonen AO (2008) Shoulder magnetic resonance arthrography: a prospective randomized study of anterior and posterior ultrasonography-guided contrast injections. Acta Radiol 49:912–917
Rutten MJ, Collins JM, Maresch BJ et al (2009) Glenohumeral joint injection: a comparative study of ultrasound and fluoroscopically guided techniques before MR arthrography. Eur Radiol 19:722–730
Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174
Depelteau H, Bureau NJ, Cardinal E et al (2004) Arthrography of the shoulder: a simple fluoroscopically guided approach for targeting the rotator cuff interval. AJR Am J Roentgenol 182:329–332
Hodler J (2008) Technical errors in MR arthrography. Skelet Radiol 37:9–18
Bushberg JT, Seibert JA, Leidholdt EM et al (2011) The essential physics of medical imaging. Wolters Kluwer Health, Alphen aan den Rijn
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Dr. Winnie Zhu for her expertise on the dose calculation mechanisms of the angiographic equipment, the clinicians at the Department of Orthopedics at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia for their referrals and collaboration, and all of the technicians, nursing staff and administrative support staff who are invaluable to the daily operation of our department.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflicts of interest
None
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gupton, T.B., Delgado, J., Jaramillo, D. et al. Comparative analysis of anterior and posterior contrast injection approaches for shoulder MR arthrograms in adolescents. Pediatr Radiol 46, 1848–1855 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-016-3691-y
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-016-3691-y