A prospective randomized study comparing three different approaches to fluoroscopy-guided shoulder arthrography according to the experience of practitioners

Objective: To compare three approaches via the anterior and posterior glenohumeral joints, and the rotator interval in fluoroscopy-guided shoulder arthrography according to the experience of the practitioners. Materials and methods: This prospective randomized study was originally designed to have 34 subjects for each approach, and finally evaluated 98 patients (mean age: 51.5 years; 55 men) from July to December 2014, who had shoulder arthrography via the anterior (n = 41) or posterior glenohumeral joint (n = 27) approaches, or via the rotator interval approach (n = 30) by residents (n=76) or fellows (n=22). The success rate, number of punctures, fluoroscopy time, radiation dose, and complications of the three methods were compared, and according to the practitioners. Results: The success rate was 100% for the anterior glenohumeral joint approach (34 out of 34), 90.0% for the posterior glenohumeral joint approach (23 out of 30), and 88.2% for the rotator interval approach (30 out of 34; p = 0.013). There was no difference in the success rate according to the practitioners’ experience. Fluoroscopy time was longest for the posterior glenohumeral joint approach (mean: 95.44 s) and shortest for the rotator interval approach (mean: 31.57 s, p = 0.006). Radiation dose was larger by 1st- or 2nd-year residents (p = 0.014), with no difference among the three approaches. Only one patient who underwent arthrography using the posterior glenohumeral joint approach complained about post-procedural pain. Conclusion: Fluoroscopy-guided shoulder arthrography via the posterior glenohumeral joint or rotator interval approach may be difficult for trainees, and the posterior glenohumeral joint approach may need a long fluoroscopy time.