MRI equipment

[Derek]

Whilst on this wonderfully informative website we regularly compare treatment options such as microsurgery v endoscopy v stereotactic radiosurgery v radiotherapy and GK v CK etc...I just wondered if anyone had thoughts, observations or experience relevant to the fundamental aspect of which MRI scanning equipment is considered to be the 'gold standard' re patient comfort and quality of images etc. or are they all too similar to differentiate?

My initial research indicates (certainly within the UK) that there appears to be a number of different manufacturers who offer 'variations on the theme' e.g.  Philips 3T Tesla Intera-Achieva; 1.0 Tesla Open Scanner; 1.5 Achieva and Siemens Avantor etc.

 My hospital of choice uses the 1.5 GE HDX Exile equipment which is a shortened version of the conventional 'claustrophobic tunnel' variant. The noise level is greater than the previous unit used at my hospital and ear plugs are a 'must.! The images are of superb quality and the CD that I requested produced equally good quality images which I could view on my own PC with no probs.

Regards

Derek

[Jim Scott]

Derek:

To be honest, I'm not especially focused on MRI manufacturers and models as I've been satisfied with the relative comfort and quality of the scans I've obtained from the hospital where I've undergone MRI scans in the past (and will, again, in the near future).  That said, you jogged my curiosity, so I decided to research what make and model of MRI machine my hospital uses.  It's a Ford Taurus.    Just kidding, of course.   

Actually, on their website, the hospital boasts that it uses the '3 Tesla' MRI unit. They have three of them.  I've found the machine to be no better or worse than any other MRI (typically noisy) but I'm rather stoic about these fairly brief scans and, fortunately, I'm not at all claustrophobic, which makes the whole thing much easier, since the scans will continue to be crucial to my treatment and the 'tracking' of my (hopefully) dying tumor.

Jim

[RED in Palacios]

I can only share my very limited experience with  a "FONAR" Upright machine.  It is an open concept machine and there is no tunnel to endure.  Image quality was excellent and the people running the service were really outstanding. Noise levels were not bad at all.  While the experience was not a refreshing, pleasurable afternoon, it was not at all unpleasent or something I dread having to repeat.

Richard 

[Derek]

Hi there Richard...

I see that you are a 'new' poster so allow me to extend to you a very warm welcome to our unique 'club'!

Regards

Derek

[pearchica]

Derek: great question, I will ask the Sacramento Group and the Stanford Group what they used.  However, as I was able to only have my head in the tunnel and my body out of the tunnel, my MRI experience was not that claustrophobic.  The gladiom dye used in Sacramento was fine (dye enhanced the MRI image of my bugger tumor), the iodine die (probably gladiom but not sure) used at Stanford was really strong. The nurse and the CK machine guru Larry Chang told me I would feel a warming sensation in lower abdomen, a strong flush that might have me worried that I inadvertantly urninated but that this was not the case. Thank God they were right! (And embarrasing as it is to admit to all of you, I guess I'd rather have you know than not)! The worst part of the MRI procedure at Stanford, having to drink 8 glasses of water to flush my system of the die prior to having any AM caffeine, causing me to stay close to facilites!   "Ayayah... gives a whole new meaning to control.... take care, Annie

[Derek]

Common sense advice I suppose... but my local MRI unit highly recommends that in furtherance of ensuring uniformity and continuity, subsequent MRI scans should,wherever practicable, be carried out on the same MRI equipment by the same radiographer and the images analysed and report compiled by the same consultant neuroradiologist.

 Probably good advice having regard to the fact that there can be variations of + / - 2mm with scans therefore any aspects that can ensure greater accuracy in the results of the scans must be at least worthy of consideration.

Regards

Derek