目的 比较3.0T MRI扫描定量测量距骨坏死体积时采用Argus软件与人工法测量数值的差异,旨在为关节疾病的早期诊断及疾病评估提供更省时且有相对固定标准的后处理技术。方法 选择2012-06至2014-03踝关节疼痛患者20例,采用3.0T磁共振扫描仪检查,采集图像由专业影像科医师分别用人工法和Argus软件对病灶大小、形态、边界及MRI信号分析,比较两种方法定量测量距骨坏死体积的差异。结果 人工法和Argus测量距骨坏死体积结果分别为(689.32±29.46) mm³和(671.66±23.01)mm³,差异无统计学意义(t=1.164, P=0.155)。人工法和Argus测量距骨坏死体积,所用时间分别为(37.8±4.9) min和(10.5±3.1)min,Argus用时少于人工法,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论 与人工法测量相比,Argus半自动测量坏死体积具有省时、重复性好、直观、人为误差小的特点,值得临床广泛推广。

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.