Objective: to compares two hydrodilatation techniques in primary patients: fluoroscopically assisted versus eco-guided.
Methods: retrospective study :two groups(48 primary adhesive capsulitis patients each) treated with fluoroscopically-contrast guided hydrodilatation -anterior portal(group S) and patient treated with eco-guided hydrodilatation-posterior portal(group E). 
Patients were evaluated :VAS(visual analogue scale) for pain, passive mobility range(PROM) and Constant score at 1,3 and 6 months and data were compared with  pre-hydrodilatation values. We monitored:  Techniques´s duration, pain during  hydrodilatation and patients needing artroscopic arthrolisis for unsuscessful hydrodilatation. 
Results: patients in both groups( comparable in terms of sex and age distribution) have less pain and better PROM at  1 month, even better at 3  months and stabilized at 6 months, comparing with pre-hydrodilation(p<0,01)without differences between the groups(p=0,63). The average Constant in group S went from 40 pre-hydrodilatation to 69 at month, 75 to 3 months and 80 to 6 months (p<0,001). In group S Constant´s averages were similar, without significance comparing Group E. The average  techniques´s duration in Group E decreased by 0,35 (p<0,001). Patients in Group E experienced less pain during hydrodilataion comparing to Group S(p<0,004). In Group S, four patients required arthroscoic arthrolisis and in Group E two patients.
Conclusions: The two hydrodilatation techniques provides good and comparable results, reduced pain, provide good and comparable results, reducing pain, improving progressively PROM and constant at one, 3 months and stabilizing at 6 months. The technique is performed faster, patients report less pain during the ecoguided hydrodilatation and required less arthroscopic arthrolisis.

HYDRODILATATION FOR PRIMARY ADHESIVE CAPSULITIS: FLUOROSCOPICALLY ASSISTED VERSUS ECO-GUIDED FOR REDUCED PAIN IN SHOULDER .