HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 2213010277v1 221/3/775    most recent Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Binkert, C. A. Articles by Hodler, J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Binkert, C. A. Articles by Hodler, J.

Patient’s Assessment of Discomfort during MR Arthrography of the Shoulder¹

¹ From the Department of Radiology, University Hospital Balgrist, Zurich, Switzerland. Received January 11, 2001; revision requested February 27; revision received April 18; accepted May 21. Address correspondence to C.A.B., Dotter Interventional Institute, Oregon Health Sciences University, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Rd, Portland, OR 97201-3098 (e-mail: binkert@compuserve.com).

PURPOSE: To assess patient discomfort during (a) intraarticular contrast material injection (arthrography) and (b) magnetic resonance (MR) imaging in patients referred for MR arthrography of the shoulder and to compare the relative discomfort associated with each part of the examination.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: With use of a visual analogue scale (VAS) and relative ratings, 202 consecutive patients referred for MR arthrography of the shoulder rated the expected discomfort and that actually experienced during both arthrography and MR imaging. The Student t test was used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS: The average VAS score (0 = "did not feel anything," 100 = "unbearable") was 16.1 ± 16.4 (SD) for arthrography and 20.2 ± 25.0 for MR imaging. This difference was statistically significant (P = .036, paired t test). The discomfort experienced during arthrography was as expected in 90 (44.6%) patients, less than expected in 110 (54.4%), and worse than expected in two (1.0%). MR imaging–related discomfort was as expected in 114 (56.4%) patients, less than expected in 66 (32.7%), and worse in 22 (10.9%). Arthrography was rated worse than MR imaging by 53 (26.2%) patients, equal to MR imaging by 69 (34.2%), and less uncomfortable than MR imaging by 80 (39.6%).

CONCLUSION: Arthrography-related discomfort was well tolerated, often less severe than anticipated, and rated less severe than MR imaging–related discomfort.

Index terms: Magnetic resonance (MR), arthrography, 41.12149 • Shoulder, arthrography, 41.122 • Shoulder, MR, 41.12149

This article has been cited by other articles:

				T. Moser, A. Moussaoui, M. Dupuis, V. Douzal, and J.-C. Dosch Anterior Approach for Knee Arthrography: Tolerance Evaluation and Comparison of Two Routes Radiology, December 1, 2007; 246(1): 193 - 197. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. Depelteau, N. J. Bureau, E. Cardinal, B. Aubin, and P. Brassard Arthrography of the Shoulder: A Simple Fluoroscopically Guided Approach for Targeting the Rotator Cuff Interval Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2004; 182(2): 329 - 332. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]