CME
JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING 000:000–000 (2012)
Original Research
Glenoid Bone Lesions: Comparison Between 3D
VIBE Images in MR Arthrography and
Nonarthrographic MSCT
Chun-Yan Tian, MD, Yao Shang, MD, and Zhuo-Zhao Zheng, MD*
Purpose: To evaluate the feasibility of using a fat-sup-
pressed 3D volumetric interpolated breath-hold examination
(VIBE) sequence in magnetic resonance (MR) arthrography
as a substitute for nonarthrographic multislice computed
tomography (MSCT) in detecting glenoid bone lesions.
Materials and Methods: Fat-suppressed 3D VIBE MR
arthrography and MSCT were performed in 56 patients
(46 male, 10 female; age range, 14–51 years; mean age, 26
years). Based on the results of MSCT, the sensitivity and
specificity of fat-suppressed 3D VIBE images for detection
of bony Bankart lesion and glenoid bone loss were deter-
mined. Statistical significance of the percentages of glenoid
bone loss between these two methods was calculated.
Results: Bony Bankart lesions were noted in 23 (41.1%) of
56 glenohumeral joints, and glenoid bone loss was found
in 40 (71.4%) of 56 patients at nonarthrographic MSCT.
Compared with MSCT, the sensitivity and specificity of fat-
suppressed 3D VIBE images in detecting bony Bankart
lesions were 95.7%–100% and 93.9%–97.0%, respectively
(kappa value ¼ 0.926), and those in predicting glenoid bone
loss were 95.0% and 93.8%, respectively. For quantification
of glenoid bone loss, there was a high correlation between
fat-suppressed 3D VIBE and MSCT (r ¼ 0.921, P < 0.001).
Conclusion: Fat-suppressed 3D VIBE MR arthrography is
a promising substitute for MSCT as a reliable method for
evaluating bony Bankart lesion and glenoid bone loss.
Key Words: shoulder joint; magnetic resonance imaging;
computed tomography
J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2012;000:000–000.
V
C 2012 Wiley Periodicals Inc.
GLENOID BONE LOSS and bony Bankart lesion are
common injuries in patient who suffered from anterior
shoulder dislocation or recurrent anterior dislocation
Department of Radiology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing,
China.
Contract grant sponsor: Beijing Municipal Science & Technology
Committee; Contract grant number: Z111107058811091.
*Address reprint requests to: Z.-Z.Z., Dept. of Radiology, Peking Uni-
versity Third Hospital, 49 North Garden Road, Haidian District, Bei-
jing 100191, P.R. China. E-mail: zzhuozhao@yahoo.com.cn
Received August 4, 2011; Accepted January 23, 2012.
DOI 10.1002/jmri.23622
View this article online at wileyonlinelibrary.com.
V
C 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
(1–3). Identification and quantification of these gle-
noid bony abnormalities are important because such
information is helpful to predict the likelihood of fur-
ther dislocation and to determine the need for bone
augmentation surgery in order to restore shoulder
stability. Failure to address these bony lesions is one
of the main risk factors for recurrent dislocation due
to shoulder instability after Bankart repair (4).
Nonarthrographic multislice computed tomography
(MSCT) is presently considered the most accurate
imaging technique for visualization and quantification
of glenoid bone lesions (5), but it is not useful for
detecting the labral lesions and soft tissue injuries.
On the other hand, magnetic resonance (MR) arthrog-
raphy has been proven the best imaging modality for
evaluating shoulder instability, including labral tear
and ligament injuries, with high sensitivity and speci-
ficity (6–8). However, it has not been validated for reli-
ably detecting bony abnormalities of the glenoid (9).
Therefore, in clinical practice, a patient with shoulder
instability has to have both MR arthrography and CT
examination for comprehensive evaluation before
arthroscopic repair. The additional CT examination
increases not only the total cost, but also the radia-
tion hazard for the patient.
In our clinical practice, a fat-suppressed 3D volu-
metric interpolated breath-hold examination (VIBE)
sequence was added to the shoulder MR arthrography
scanning protocol, and we found these images had
good contrast between glenoid bone and its surround-
ing soft tissues. Therefore, we hypothesized that a
fat-suppressed 3D VIBE sequence could serve as an
alternative to nonarthrographic MSCT for detecting
glenoid bone loss and bony Bankart lesion in patients
with shoulder instability. Thus, the purpose of our
study was to compare fat-suppressed 3D VIBE MR
arthrography with nonarthrographic MSCT in glenoid
bony abnormalities.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Patients
This diagnostic test was performed on 56 patients
(age range, 14–51 years; mean age, 26 years) referred
to our department for shoulder MR arthrography from
1
2 Tian et al.
January 2009 to May 2011. Patients with prior
shoulder surgery were excluded. The patient group
included 46 men and 10 women. Forty-one patients
had recurrent shoulder anterior dislocation and the
remaining 15 manifested shoulder pain and motion
limitation. The time between MR arthrography and
MSCT ranged from 0–27 days (mean, 5.55 6 6.36
days). This project was approved by our Investiga-
tional Review Board of our hospital and informed con-
sent was obtained from all study patients.
MRI
All patients underwent MRI of the affected shoulder
using a 3.0 Tesla MR (Magnetom Trio with TIM sys-
tem, Siemens, Erlangen, Germany) with a maximum
gradient amplitude of 44 mT/m and a maximum slew
rate of 200 mT/m/s. Joint puncture was first per-
formed with fluoroscopic guidance via the rotator
interval approach, and then 10–12 mL of diluted
gadopentetate dimeglumine with a concentration of 4–
6 mmolGd/L was injected into the shoulder. The con-
trast material was prepared with a 20-mL syringe
using 5 mL diluted Magnevist solution (Schering,
GuangZhou, China) with normal saline, 5 mL iodine-
based contrast (Omnipaque 300 mg I/mL; AnSheng,
ShangHai, China), and 5 mL lidocaine hydrochloride
injection (10).
All patients were scheduled for MRI no more than
30 minutes after injection. A dedicated flexible surface
coil (4-channel flex coil, large or small) supplied by
the MR manufacturer was used to receive the signal
from the affected shoulder. T1-weighted turbo spin-
echo images were routinely obtained in the transverse
plane (repetition time/echo time [TR/TE] 700/12
msec, 3.5 mm section thickness, 160
160 mm field
of view [FOV], matrix 256
256, 2 turbo factors),
in the coronal oblique plane (TR/TE 700/12 msec,
3.5 mm section thickness, 160
160 mm FOV,
matrix 256
256), and in the sagittal oblique plane
(TR/TE 650/11 msec, 4 mm section thickness, 160

160 mm FOV, matrix 256
256). The coronal oblique
images were arranged parallel to the long axis of the
supraspinatus tendon and the sagittal oblique images
were perpendicular to the long axis of the supraspina-
tus tendon.
In addition to the above routine clinical shoulder
MR, an arthrography-specific imaging protocol using
a commercially available fat-suppressed 3D VIBE
sequence was performed in each patient. The parame-
ters of the VIBE sequence were: TR/TE 12.2/4.9
msec, flip angle 10 , 160
160 mm FOV, matrix 512

512, one slab of 112 slices with slice thickness of
0.6 mm, and one acquisition. This resulted in a voxel
volume of 0.6
0.6
0.6 mm. This isotropic 3D
sequence was obtained in the coronal oblique plane
and the acquisition time was 3 minutes 14 seconds.
MSCT Imaging
All patients underwent nonarthrographic MSCT of the
affected shoulder on a 16-row multidetector CT unit
(Sensation 16, Siemens Medical Solutions). Patients
were placed in the supine position, with the arm along
the body and the shoulder in a neutral position. Spi-
ral CT was only targeted to the affected shoulder, and
the anatomical area ranged from the acromioclavicu-
lar joint to the axillary recess. The CT parameters
used were: tube voltage 120 kV; tube current 100
mAs; collimation beam 0.75 mm, feed/rotation 9 mm,
effective pitch 0.75. The FOV at acquisition was
30 cm (pixel size, 0.6
0.6 mm) and section thick-
ness was 1 mm, with a section increment of 0.7 mm
(30% section overlap).
Image Analysis
Both fat-suppressed 3D VIBE MR arthrography data
and MSCT spiral data were then reformatted into par-
allel transverse, coronal oblique, and sagittal oblique
images (section thickness, 3 mm; no intersection gap).
Transverse reformation was perpendicular to the gle-
nohumeral joint space. Coronal oblique reformation
was parallel to the long axis of the glenoid. Sagittal
oblique reformation was not only perpendicular to the
long axis of the glenoid, but also parallel to the gleno-
humeral joint space on coronal oblique images, so
images en face to the glenoid articular surface could
be collected.
Two observers (both with more than 13 years of
experience in musculoskeletal radiology) reviewed all
reformatted images of fat-suppressed 3D VIBE MR
sequences first, and then images of MSCT 2 weeks
later. The observers were blinded to patient identity
and clinical history.
Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of the bone marrow and
contrast-to-noise ratios (CNRs) between the bone mar-
row and surrounding soft tissues with fat-suppressed
3D VIBE were assessed by one observer. Regions of
interest (ROIs) were placed within the glenoid bone
marrow, muscle belly of the infraspinatus, anterior
labrum, and intraarticular fluid on the transverse
reformatted images. The normalization to the noise
was calculated by: S/N, where S corresponded to the
mean signal intensity of the selected ROI and N corre-
sponded to the standard deviation (SD) of the noise.
The SD of the noise was obtained by placing an ROI
in a background area that was free of signal and as
large as possible. The CNRs were calculated by: (S1 
S2)/N, where S1 and S2 corresponds to the signal in-
tensity of the compared structures and N corresponds
to the SD of the noise.
The presence of a bony Bankart lesion was deter-
mined on transverse reformatted images through the
glenoid. Bony Bankart lesions were diagnosed by
observing a bone fragment adjacent to the glenoid
rim. In this analysis the two observers were working
independently.
The presence of glenoid bone loss was determined
on sagittal oblique images en face to the glenoid fossa.
The best-fitting circle technique was used. Normally,
the shape of the inferior part of the bony glenoid in
the en face image can be circled by a best-fitting circle
(3,11), and the anterior margin of the normal glenoid
fossa has a curved contour. Glenoid bone loss was
defined as positive when that circle was missing, or
3D VIBE for Glenoid Bone Lesions 3

Figure 1. Injured glenoid with

anteroinferior bone loss. In the
oblique sagittal fat-suppressed
3D VIBE image (a) and MSCT
reformatted image (b) en face to
the glenoid articular surface, O
represents the geometric center
of the inferior glenoid circle. CD
represents the anterior straight
line. The intersection of line AB
and line CD is labeled E. The
percentage of glenoid bone loss
is calculated as EB divided by
AB
100%.

when the curved anterior margin of the glenoid fossa
became straight.
Quantification of glenoid bone loss was also based
on sagittal oblique images en face to the glenoid fossa.
As stated above, with the best-fitting circle technique,
the missing part of that circle could represent the size
of the glenoid bone loss. The percentage of glenoid
bone loss could be calculated as the difference in gle-
noid defect width divided by the diameter of the circle

100% (Fig. 1). Detection and quantification of gle-
noid bone loss were performed by the same observer.
Statistical Analysis
By using the results of nonarthrographic MSCT as the
reference standard, the sensitivity and specificity of
fat-suppressed 3D VIBE for qualifying bony Bankart
lesions were determined. Cohen’s kappa coefficient
was calculated to quantify the level of agreement at
interobserver comparison.
Based on the results of MSCT, the sensitivity and
specificity of a fat-suppressed 3D VIBE for qualifying
glenoid bone losses were determined. Additionally, the
statistical significance of the percentages of glenoid
bone loss between fat-suppressed 3D VIBE MR
arthrography and nonarthrographic MSCT was calcu-
lated using the double sided paired-samples t-test.
Correlation between percentages of glenoid bone loss
with fat-suppressed 3D VIBE and MSCT was assessed
with Spearman’s rank coefficient (r).
Data entry procedures and statistical analyses were
performed with SPSS 11.5 software (Chicago, IL). P 
0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Bony Bankart lesions were noted in 23 (41.1%) of
56 glenohumeral joints at nonarthrographic MSCT by
both observers. These 23 patients all had a history of
recurrent anterior dislocation. Based on the results of
MSCT, the sensitivity and specificity of fat-suppressed
3D VIBE for bony Bankart lesions were 95.7% (22/
23) and 93.9% (31/33), respectively for observer 1,
and 100% (23/23) and 97.0% (32/33), respectively for
observer 2 (Fig. 2–5). At interobserver comparison,
agreement was very good (kappa value ¼ 0.926).
Glenoid bone loss was found in 40 (71.4%) of 56
patients on nonarthrographic MSCT examination,
including 35 with recurrent anterior dislocation and
five with shoulder pain and motion limitation. Based
on the results of MSCT, the sensitivity and specificity
of fat-suppressed 3D VIBE in predicting glenoid bone
loss were 95.0% (38/40) and 93.8% (15/16), respec-
tively. There were two false-negative fat-suppressed
3D VIBE assessments. In these two cases, nonarthro-
graphic MSCT showed 3.72% and 6.03% glenoid bone
loss, respectively. There was one false-positive fat-
suppressed 3D VIBE assessment. In this case, fat-
suppressed 3D VIBE revealed 6.69% glenoid bone

RESULTS
The SNR of the bone marrow with fat-suppressed 3D
VIBE was 23.89 6 16.10. Bone marrow-to-anterior
labrum CNR, bone marrow-to-infraspinatus CNR,
and bone marrow-to-intraarticular fluid CNR were
40.739 6 23.572, 48.477 6 24.566, and 169.675
6 87.024, respectively.
Figure 2. Bony Bankart lesion in a 21-year-old man. The
axial reformatted image of fat-suppressed 3D VIBE (a) shows
a low signal bony fragment attaching to the anteroinferior
glenoid neck (arrow), which is demonstrated a bony Bankart
lesion (arrow) on the reformatted CT image (b).
4 Tian et al.
Figure 3. Bony Bankart lesion in a 27-year-old man. The
axial reformatted image of fat-suppressed 3D VIBE (a) shows
a low signal bony fragment adjacent to the anteroinferior gle-
noid neck (arrow), which is demonstrated as a detached
bony Bankart lesion (arrow) on the reformatted CT image (b).
loss, but no bone loss was apparent on nonarthro-
graphic MSCT.
As to the quantification of glenoid bone loss,
fat-suppressed 3D VIBE MR arthrography (10.48% 6
8.71%; range, 0%–30.21%) and nonarthrographic
MSCT (10.96% 6 9.00%; range, 0%–31.40%) showed
no statistical difference (t ¼ 1.072, P ¼ 0.288), and
there was a high correlation (r ¼ 0.921, P < 0.001)
between these two techniques (Fig. 6). The maximum
difference in the quantification of glenoid bone loss
was 7.43% (Fig. 7), with SD 3.33%.
DISCUSSION
Our study demonstrates a high consistency between
fat-suppressed 3D VIBE MR arthrography and nonar-
thrographic MSCT in detecting bony Bankart lesions
and glenoid bone loss and quantifying the glenoid bone
loss. Thus, the fat-suppressed 3D VIBE sequence in
MR arthrography may be a reliable replacement for
nonarthrographic MSCT for detecting glenoid bony
abnormalities. In patients with anterior shoulder dis-
location, MR arthrography routine sequences (SE or
FSE sequences) can be used for detecting labral
Figure 4. Bony Bankart lesion in a 36-year-old woman. The
axial reformatted image of fat-suppressed 3D VIBE (a) shows
a punctate low signal structure attaching to the anteroinfe-
rior glenoid neck (arrow), which is proved a small bony
Bankart lesion (arrow) on the axial reformatted CT image (b).
Figure 5. False bony Bankart lesion with fat-suppressed 3D
VIBE in a 29-year-old man. The axial reformatted image of
fat-suppressed 3D VIBE (a) shows a triangular low signal
structure attaching to the anteroinferior glenoid neck
(arrow), which was mistaken for a bony Bankart lesion by
both observers. This structure proved to be adipose tissue
adjacent to the glenoid neck (arrow) on the axial reformatted
MSCT image (b).
lesions. By adding an additional fat-suppressed 3D
VIBE sequence, which is commercially available,
we can reliably evaluate glenoid bone abnormalities,
eliminating the need of MSCT examination for detecting
bony abnormalities. The patient then can not only
avoid the radiation hazard, but also reduce the
total cost of the examination by eliminating the
additional CT.
Fat-suppressed 3D VIBE is an interpolated T1-
weighted gradient-echo MR sequence with the fast low
angle shot technique (12). Compared with the conven-
tional fat-suppressed 3D T1-weighted fast low angle
shot, the fat-suppressed 3D VIBE sequence has an
ability to achieve images with higher spatial resolution
in much shorter acquisition times (13); therefore, it
Figure 6. Correlation between glenoid bone losses measured
by fat-suppressed 3D VIBE and by nonarthrographic MSCT.
Pearson’s correlation coefficient was 0.921, P < 0.001.
3D VIBE for Glenoid Bone Lesions
Figure 7. Differences in measurement of the size of the gle-
noid bone loss by fat-suppressed 3D VIBE and by nonarthro-
graphic MSCT.
has been widely used as a more effective gradient-
echo T1-weighted sequence in many clinical areas
(14–16). In our practice, fat-suppressed 3D VIBE was
originally applied to obtain fast isotropic 3D MR
arthrography, to explore the added value of isotropic
3D images in evaluation of the glenoid labral abnor-
malities. We found that this sequence provided good
contrast between the glenoid and surrounding soft tis-
sues in MR arthrography. As a result, we designed
and performed this study. In this study we found that
the contrast between the glenoid bone marrow and
the anterior labrum, the surrounding muscle, and the
intraarticular contrast material of this sequence was
good enough to detect glenoid bone lesions. The sensi-
tivity and specificity of this sequence in detecting
glenoid bone pathologies were nearly as good as non-
arthrographic MSCT.
On routine spin-echo (SE) or fast spin-echo (FSE)
T1-weighted images, both glenoid labrum and adja-
cent cortex bone have similar low signal intensity and
cannot, therefore, be distinguished reliably. Thus,
routine shoulder MR arthrography with SE or FSE
T1-weighted images may be less effective than MSCT
for detecting small glenoid rim fractures. However, in
shoulder MR arthrography with a fat-suppressed 3D
VIBE sequence, the labrum displayed relative high
signal intensity, while the bone marrow and cortex of
bone very low signal, and high contrast was presented
between glenoid bone and soft tissues. Therefore, the
labrum and adjacent bone can be easily separated
and this phenomenon is the basis for evaluation of
glenoid bone lesions with a fat-suppressed 3D VIBE
sequence. With fat-suppressed 3D VIBE MR arthrog-
raphy, shorter echo times and penetration of contrast
medium into abnormal labrums may be the reasons
for increased signal intensity of labrums, and the fat-
suppressed technology and magnetic susceptibility
5
artifacts of bone trabeculas may be the causes for
very low signal intensity of glenoid bone structures.
No matter what the intrinsic factors are, fat-sup-
pressed 3D VIBE images manifest good contrast
between glenoid bone and glenoid labrum.
We found that for the detection and quantification
of glenoid bone loss, fat-suppressed 3D VIBE images
seemed almost similar to that of nonarthrographic
MSCT. For the detection of bony Bankart lesion, the
false-positive case of fat-suppressed 3D VIBE images
showed a low-signal-intensity triangular structure
adjacent to the anteroinferior glenoid neck, which was
demonstrated to be adipose tissue (there was no gle-
noid rim fracture on axial reformatted CT). It is our
belief that the adipose tissue outside the joint capsule
resulted in the misdiagnosis, but this potential mis-
diagnosis with 3D VIBE seems rare. Although adipose
tissue is normally present around the shoulder joint
capsule, it is usually pushed away from the glenoid
rim and the labrum with the extension of joint cap-
sule by MR arthrography. Therefore, the difficulty of
distinguishing the adipose tissue and the fracture
fragment adjacent to the glenoid rim can usually be
avoided.
There were two main limitations in our study. First,
to determine the percentage of glenoid bone loss,
many studies recommended that it was better to com-
pare the affected shoulder with the unaffected side for
evaluation (5,17,18), but for our patients only the
affected shoulder was examined. However, the best-
fitting circle technique is also a generally accepted
method for measuring the size of a glenoid bone defect
without a comparison with the contralateral shoulder
(3,19). In addition, the aim of our study was to com-
pare two techniques, and this purpose could be
achieved through evaluation of only one shoulder side
as long as the appraisal method was consistent. Sec-
ond, because the results of MSCT were chosen as the
reference standard, no arthroscopic quantification of
glenoid bone loss was available in our study. However,
MSCT has been proven to be a reliable way of quanti-
fying glenoid bone loss, and previous studies have
shown good correlation between MSCT and arthro-
scopy in this respect (3,5,20). Some authors even rec-
ommended preoperative nonarthrographic MSCT as a
gold standard instead of arthroscopy to assess glenoid
bone loss in patients with shoulder dislocation (21).
In conclusion, adding additional fat-suppressed 3D
VIBE images in MR arthrography yielded nearly equal
results to nonarthrographic MSCT in evaluating glenoid
bone loss and bony Bankart lesions. Therefore, when
MR arthrography is performed in patients with shoulder
anterior instability, a fat-suppressed 3D VIBE sequence
could be added to the protocol to avoid additional CT
for the detection of glenoid bony abnormalities.
REFERENCES
1. Millett PJ, Clavert P, Warner JJ. Open operative treatment for an-
terior shoulder instability: when and why? J Bone Joint Surg Am
2005;87:419–432.
2. Griffith JF, Antonio GE, Tong CWC, Ming CK. Anterior shoulder
dislocation: quantification of glenoid bone loss with MSCT. AJR
Am J Roentgenol 2003;180:1423–1430.
6 Tian et al.
3. Sugaya H, Moriishi J, Dohi M, Kon Y, Tsuchiya A. Glenoid rim
morphology in recurrent anterior glenohumeral instability.
J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003;85:878–884.
4. Boileau P, Villalba M, Hery JY, Balg F, Ahrens P, Neyton L. Risk
factors for recurrence of shoulder instability after arthroscopic
Bankart repair. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006;88:1755–1763.
5. Griffith JF, Yung PSH, Antonio GE, Tsang PH, Ahuja AT, Chan
KM. MSCT compared with arthroscopy in quantifying glenoid
bone loss. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;189:1490–1493.
6. Waldt S, Burkart A, Lange P, Imhoff AB, Rummeny EJ, Woertler
K. Diagnostic performance of MR arthrography in the assessment
of superior labral anteroposterior lesions of the shoulder. AJR Am
J Roentgenol 2004;182:1271–1278.
7. Waldt S, Burkart A, Imhoff AB, Bruegel M, Rummeny EJ, Woer-
tler K. Anterior shoulder instability: accuracy of MR arthrography
in the classification of anteroinferior labroligamentous injuries.
Radiology 2005;237:578–583.
8. Tung GA, Hou DD. MR arthrography of the posterior labrocapsular
complex: relationship with glenohumeral joint alignment and clini-
cal posterior instability. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;180:369–375.
9. Bitzer M, Nasko M, Krackhardt T, et al. Direct MSCT-arthrography
versus direct MR-arthrography in chronic shoulder instability:
comparison of modalities after the introduction of multidetector-
MSCT technology. Rofo 2004;176:1770–1775.
10. Shang Y, Zheng ZZ, Li X. Direct MR arthrography of the shoulder
at 3 Tesla: optimization of gadolinium concentration. J Magn
Reson Imaging 2009;30:229–235.
11. Burkart SS, DeBeer JF, Tehrany AM, Parten PM. Quantifying gle-
noid bone loss arthroscopically in shoulder instability. Arthro-
scopy 2002;18:488–491.
12. Zheng ZZ, Shan H, Li X. Fat-suppressed 3D T1-weighted gradient-
echo imaging of the cartilage with a volumetric interpolated breath-
hold examination. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010;194:W414–419.
13. Kataoka M, Ueda H, Koyama T, et al. Contrast-enhanced
volumetric interpolated breath-hold examination compared with
spin-echo T1-weighted imaging of head and neck tumors. AJR
Am J Roentgenol 2005;184:313–319.
14. Vogt FM, Antoch G, Hunold P, et al. Parallel acquisition techni-
ques for accelerated volumetric interpolated breath-hold exami-
nation magnetic resonance imaging of the upper abdomen:
assessment of image quality and lesion conspicuity. J Magn
Reson Imaging 2005;21:376–382.
15. Lauenstein TC, Goehde SC, Herborn CU, et al. Three dimensional
volumetric interpolated breath-hold MR imaging for whole-body
tumor staging in less than 15 minutes: a feasibility study. AJR
Am J Roentgenol 2002;179:444–449.
16. Mermuys KP, Vanhoenacker PK, Chappel P, Van Hoe L. Three
dimensional venography of the brain with a volumetric interpo-
lated sequence. Radiology 2005;234:901–908.
17. Chuang TY, Adams CR, Burkhart SS. Use of preoperative three-
dimensional computed tomography to quantify glenoid bone loss
in shoulder instability. Arthroscopy 2008;24:376–382.
18. d’Elia G, Di Giacomo A, D’Alessandro P, Cirillo LC. Traumatic an-
terior glenohumeral instability: quantification of glenoid bone
loss by spiral CT. Radiol Med 2008;113:496–503.
19. Huijsmans PE, Haen PS, Kidd M, Dhert WJ, van der Hulst VP,
Willems WJ. Quantification of a glenoid defect with three-dimen-
sional computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging: a
cadaveric study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2007;16:803–809.
20. Saito H, Itoi E, Sugaya H, Minagawa H, Yamamoto N, Tuoheti Y.
Location of the glenoid defect in shoulders with recurrent anterior
dislocation. Am J Sports Med 2005;33:889–893.
21. Kralinger F, Aigner F, Longato S, Rieger M, Wambacher M. Is the
bare spot a consistent landmark for shoulder arthroscopy? A
study of 20 embalmed glenoids with 3-dimensional computed
tomographic reconstruction. Arthroscopy 2006;22:428–432.