These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Radiation dose and intra-articular access: comparison of the lateral mortise and anterior midline approaches to fluoroscopically guided tibiotalar joint injections.
    Author: Huang AJ, Balza R, Torriani M, Bredella MA, Chang CY, Simeone FJ, Palmer WE.
    Journal: Skeletal Radiol; 2016 Mar; 45(3):367-73. PubMed ID: 26613732.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: To compare the lateral mortise and anterior midline approaches to fluoroscopically guided tibiotalar joint injections with respect to successful intra-articular needle placement, fluoroscopy time, radiation dose, and dose area product (DAP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study was IRB-approved and HIPAA-compliant. 498 fluoroscopically guided tibiotalar joint injections were performed or supervised by one of nine staff radiologists from 11/1/2010-12/31/2013. The injection approach was determined by operator preference. Images were reviewed on a PACS workstation to determine the injection approach (lateral mortise versus anterior midline) and to confirm intra-articular needle placement. Fluoroscopy time (minutes), radiation dose (mGy), and DAP (μGy-m(2)) were recorded and compared using the student's t-test (fluoroscopy time) or the Wilcoxon rank sum test (radiation dose and DAP). RESULTS: There were 246 lateral mortise injections and 252 anterior midline injections. Two lateral mortise injections were excluded from further analysis because no contrast was administered. Intra-articular location of the needle tip was documented in 242/244 lateral mortise injections and 252/252 anterior midline injections. Mean fluoroscopy time was shorter for the lateral mortise group than the anterior midline group (0.7 ± 0.5 min versus 1.2 ± 0.8 min, P < 0.0001). Mean radiation dose and DAP were less for the lateral mortise group than the anterior midline group (2.1 ± 3.7 mGy versus 2.5 ± 3.5 mGy, P = 0.04; 11.5 ± 15.3 μGy-m(2) versus 13.5 ± 17.3 μGy-m(2), P = 0.006). CONCLUSION: Both injection approaches resulted in nearly 100% rates of intra-articular needle placement, but the lateral mortise approach used approximately 40% less fluoroscopy time and delivered 15% lower radiation dose and DAP to the patient.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]