Advertisement

Skeletal Radiology

, Volume 48, Issue 3, pp 445–448 | Cite as

How we do it: shifting MR arthrogram compounding from the fluoroscopy suite to the sterile pharmacy

  • Chad C. AdamsEmail author
  • Matthew J. Loewen
  • Ian A. Breckenridge
  • Jane E. Besich-Carter
  • Lisabeth A. Bush
Technical Report
  • 88 Downloads

Abstract

Objective

To assess the impact of shifting arthrogram injectate compounding from the fluoroscopy suite to the main hospital sterile pharmacy on cost, examination delays, and infection rates.

Materials and Methods

All arthrograms from the 12 months before (629 in total) and the 12 months after (699 in total) the change in arthrogram preparation procedure were compared to identify differences in examination delays and infection rate. The arthrogram formulation was sent to the Compounder’s International Analytical Laboratory for stability testing. Finally, cost per injection analysis was performed to compare fluoroscopy suite with sterile pharmacy compounding.

Results

In the 699 arthrograms performed in the 12 months following transfer of arthrogram preparation to the main hospital pharmacy, there were 0 reported examination delays, 0 reported infections, and a 53% decrease in the material cost per arthrogram. There were three recorded instances of fluoroscopy suite preparation of arthrogram injectate due to unexpected add-on patients. Outside stability testing determined that the arthrogram injectate retained at least 90% potency 30 h post-preparation.

Conclusion

Shifting the compounding of the arthrogram injectate from the fluoroscopy room to the main hospital sterile pharmacy provides a modest cost saving and can be accomplished without examination delays or any increase in infection rate. It brought our practice into compliance with USP797, which is the current guideline for compounding practitioners, by transferring the compounding preparation of the arthrogram injectate from a procedure room to the sterile pharmacy.

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Disclaimers

None.

Sources of support

None.

Conflicts of interest

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Newberg AH, Munn CS, Robbins AH. Complications of arthrography. Radiology. 1985;155(3):605–6.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.155.3.4001360.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Saupe N, Zanetti M, Pfirrmann CW, Wels T, Schwenke C, Hodler J. Pain and other side effects after MR arthrography: prospective evaluation in 1085 patients. Radiology. 2009;250(3):830–8.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2503080276.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Vollman AT, Craig JG, Hulen R, Ahmed A, Zervos MJ, van Holsbeeck M. Review of three magnetic resonance arthrography related infections. World J Radiol. 2013;5(2):41–4.  https://doi.org/10.4329/wjr.v5.i2.41.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    US Pharmacopoeia. 2016 US Pharmacopeia/National Formulary USP 797, vol. 1. Rockville: United States Pharmacopeial Convention; 2015.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Flannigan B, Kursunoglu-Brahme S, Snyder S, Karzel R, Del Pizzo W, Resnick D. MR arthrography of the shoulder: comparison with conventional MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1990;155(4):829–32.  https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.155.4.2119117.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Magee T. Usefulness of unenhanced MRI and MR arthrography of the shoulder in detection of unstable labral tears. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015;205:1056–60.  https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.14.14262.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jean-Sebastien R, Braen C, Leblond J, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of ultrasonography, MRI and MR arthrography in the characterisaton of rotator cuff disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med. 2015;49:1316–28.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2014-094148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lee JH, Yoon YC, Jung JY, Yoo JC. Rotator cuff tears noncontrast MRI compared to MR arthrography. Skeletal Radiol. 2015;44:1745–54.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-015-2228-z.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schulte-Altedorneburg G, Gebhard M, Wohlgemuth WA, et al. MR arthrography: pharmacology, efficacy and safety in clinical trials. Skeletal Radiol. 2003;32(1):1–12.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-002-0595-8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brown RR, Clarke DW, Daffner RH. Is a mixture of gadolinium and iodinated contrast material safe during MR arthrography? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000;175(4):1087–90.  https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.175.4.1751087.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply  2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chad C. Adams
    • 1
    Email author
  • Matthew J. Loewen
    • 1
  • Ian A. Breckenridge
    • 1
  • Jane E. Besich-Carter
    • 1
  • Lisabeth A. Bush
    • 1
  1. 1.Madigan Army Medical CenterTacomaUSA

Personalised recommendations