AJR Join ARRS
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hall, F.
Right arrow Articles by Wyshak, G
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hall, F.
Right arrow Articles by Wyshak, G
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol 136, Issue 1, 59-62
Copyright © 1981 by American Roentgen Ray Society


Articles

Morbidity from shoulder arthrography: etiology, incidence, and prevention

FM Hall, DI Rosenthal, RP Goldberg, and G Wyshak

A prospective study was performed to assess patient discomfort after shoulder arthrography. Three different techniques were compared using equal intraarticular volumes of: positive contrast medium alone, positive contrast medium diluted with local anesthetic, or positive contrast medium and air. Moderate or severe exacerbation of baseline shoulder discomfort, when evaluated 24-48 hr after arthrography, occurred in 74% of all patients. There was significantly less discomfort after double-contrast examinations than after other techniques, although the level of morbidity was still high. This incidence and severity of discomfort after shoulder arthrography is higher than previously reported or generally recognized. Morbidity after shoulder arthrography is probably caused by a direct irritant effect of the positive contrast medium and/or the additional influx of fluid, into an already distended joint, in response to the hyperosmolar positive contrast medium. The latter effect is consistent with the delayed onset of symptoms which usually began 4-6 hr after the procedure, peaked in intensity 12 hr later and, when severe, often lasted for several days. Smaller volumes of intraarticular contrast medium and/or the use of nonionic and polymeric contrast agents, untested in this protocol, might reduce these symptoms.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
RadiologyHome page
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]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
C. A. Binkert, M. Zanetti, and J. Hodler
Patient's Assessment of Discomfort during MR Arthrography of the Shoulder
Radiology, December 1, 2001; 221(3): 775 - 778.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1981 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.