by
Carol Ko, Staff Writer | October 30, 2013
From the October 2013 issue of HealthCare Business News magazine
The biggest reason for the failure of 16 channel coils? “You can’t just take an existing room and put 16 channel coils in it,” he says. Upgrading the room to make it 16-channel-compatible is costly, ranging from $100,000-150,000. Given all the economic challenges plaguing hospitals, many of them are understandably skittish about sinking big dollars into a newer technology when their current equipment already gets the job done.
Indeed, this gets at the debate around higher-channel coils and their utility — at what point in the rising channel count are the advantages outweighed by the drawback of extra expense? “The price point has become and continues to be very important to customers. As you go up in channels, the cost is increased quite a bit,” says Andrew Beck, director of business development at MR Instruments.
Higher channels are ostensibly useful because they boost the coil’s signal-to-noise ratio, enhancing image quality. But certain body parts need fewer channels. For example, an abdomen or torso, the largest body parts, would benefit from a higher channel count. On the other hand, for a wrist or a foot, eight or 16 channel counts are just fine, experts like Walker say.
However, NYU’s Sodickson thinks that in the long term, higher channel counts will prevail as a trend. He points out that when he first entered the field, machines in research centers had four to six receiver channels at most. “Guess what people thought the point of diminishing return was for channels back then — four to six!” he laughs. “Then parallel imaging came along and blew that out of the water,” he adds.
His point? The diminishing point of return always shifts over time with the advent of new technology. “It’s an evolving truth,” Sodickson says.
Joint effort
Many manufacturers are now also taking advantages of the opportunities in the underserved pediatric market, making coils specifically designed for younger patients.
Beck explains it’s not uncommon for doctors to adapt an adult’s knee or head coil to image pediatric patients. “They’ll get images, but it doesn’t result in the best patient care,” he says.
“Generally speaking, the closer you put the coils to the anatomy, the better the signal-to-noise ratio you get,” Sodickson says.
Manufacturers also see opportunities in the growing orthopedic market. “I think you’re going to see more imaging on the ankle, possibly the elbow and much more with hips, especially with demographics changing,” says Beck.
From an engineering standpoint, creating coils for joints are more difficult. Coil construction has to be flexible enough to wrap around those areas without sacrificing the number of channels and circuits needed to create a quality image.
