OBJECTIVE: We sought to prospectively evaluate patients' pain perception and technical success of four different arthrographic techniques for shoulder MR arthrography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 125 consecutive patients were referred for shoulder MR arthrography. The patients were randomly injected under fluoroscopic guidance (n(1) = 37), with CT guidance using an anterior (n(2) = 29) or a posterior approach (n(3) = 32) and with ultrasound guidance (n(4) = 27). For each patient, absolute periprocedural pain on a numerical rating pain scale (0 = "no pain", 10 = "intolerable pain"), technical success of the method used, and reason for referral were recorded. RESULTS: The technical success rate was 100% for all injection methods. The results regarding absolute periprocedural pain were as follows: fluoroscopic guidance showed a mean pain of 4.05 ± 1.24, CT anterior guidance demonstrated a mean pain of 3.87 ± 0.95, CT posterior guidance showed a mean pain of 1.59 ± 0.81, and ultrasound guidance a mean pain of 3.63 ± 1.12. A significant difference (p < .05) was observed for the posterior route under CT guidance. The mean pain level was significantly higher for older (> 51 year) female patients. CONCLUSIONS: No differences were found for the technical success rate of the aforementioned techniques. A CT-guided posterior approach seems to be a more comfortable method for the patient.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: We sought to prospectively evaluate patients' pain perception and technical success of four different arthrographic techniques for shoulder MR arthrography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 125 consecutive patients were referred for shoulder MR arthrography. The patients were randomly injected under fluoroscopic guidance (n(1) = 37), with CT guidance using an anterior (n(2) = 29) or a posterior approach (n(3) = 32) and with ultrasound guidance (n(4) = 27). For each patient, absolute periprocedural pain on a numerical rating pain scale (0 = "no pain", 10 = "intolerable pain"), technical success of the method used, and reason for referral were recorded. RESULTS: The technical success rate was 100% for all injection methods. The results regarding absolute periprocedural pain were as follows: fluoroscopic guidance showed a mean pain of 4.05 ± 1.24, CT anterior guidance demonstrated a mean pain of 3.87 ± 0.95, CT posterior guidance showed a mean pain of 1.59 ± 0.81, and ultrasound guidance a mean pain of 3.63 ± 1.12. A significant difference (p < .05) was observed for the posterior route under CT guidance. The mean pain level was significantly higher for older (> 51 year) female patients. CONCLUSIONS: No differences were found for the technical success rate of the aforementioned techniques. A CT-guided posterior approach seems to be a more comfortable method for the patient.
Authors: Dae Kun Oh; Young Cheol Yoon; Jong Won Kwon; Sang-Hee Choi; Jee Young Jung; Sooho Bae; Jaechul Yoo Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2009-02 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Joseph C Giaconi; Thomas M Link; Thomas P Vail; Zachary Fisher; Richard Hong; Ravi Singh; Lynne S Steinbach Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Francesco S Ferrari; Simone Governi; Francesca Burresi; Francesco Vigni; Paolo Stefani Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2001-12-07 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Keith Meister; Jim Thesing; William J Montgomery; Peter A Indelicato; Steve Walczak; William Fontenot Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2003-09-26 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Carmelo Messina; Giuseppe Banfi; Alberto Aliprandi; Giovanni Mauri; Francesco Secchi; Francesco Sardanelli; Luca Maria Sconfienza Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-08-08 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Paolo Simoni; Marco Grumolato; Olivier Malaise; Marco Preziosi; Francoise Pasleau; Fréderic de Lemos Esteves Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2017-05-18 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Alberto Tagliafico; Giuseppe Russo; Sara Boccalini; Johan Michaud; Andrea Klauser; Giovanni Serafini; Carlo Martinoli Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2013-12-03 Impact factor: 3.469