Abstract：Objective To compare the numerical difference between the Argus software and artificial method for quantitative measurement of talar necrosis volume separately after 3.0 T magnetic resonance scanning, for the purpose of early diagnosis and evaluation of disease of joint disease with less time and provide a relatively fixed standard quantitative measurement technique. Methods From June 2012 to March 2014, 30 patients with ankle pain were recruited for this study. Using 3.0T MRI scanner, analysis was made of lesion size, shape, boundary and magnetic signal respectively by the artificial method and using the Argus software by professional radiology doctors and the volume of talus necrosis was obtained. The difference of the two methods of quantitative determination of necrosis talus volume was compared. Results The results of artificial method and Argus of talar necrosis volume were (689.32±29.46) mm3 and (671.66±23.01) mm3, respectively, with statistically significant difference (t=1.164, P=0.155). And the time required were (37.8±4.9) min and (10.5±3.1) min, respectively, the comparison between the two methods had significant difference. Argus used significantly less time than the artificial method, the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). Conclusions Compared with artificial measurement, Argus software semi-automatic measurement of talar necrosis volume has the advantages of time saving, good repeatability, intuitiveness, and human error small, worthy of clinical practice.
Goebel J C, Pinzano A, Grenier D, et al. New trends in MRI carlilage: advances and limitations in small animal studies[J]. Biomed Mater Eng, 2010, 20(3): 189-194.
[4]
John J, Herman S, Ginai A Z, et al. The additional value of an oblique image plane for MRI of the anterior and posterior distal tibiofibular syndesmosis [J]. Skeletal Radiol, 2011, 40: 75-83.
Sahin B, Ergur H. Assessment of the optimum section thickness for the estimation of liver volume using magnetic resonance images: a stereological gold standard study [J]. Eur J Radiol, 2006, 57(1): 96-101.
2015, Vol. 26 
