A1 Medical Imaging’s CEO Compares Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and Ultrasound Technologies

Peter Solodko, the CEO of A1 Medical Imaging, compares the technological differences between magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound technologies to help determine when one imaging approach is more appropriate than the other.

An ultrasound device gives off high-frequency sound waves that go through the body and creates images called sonograms. As the sound waves bounce off organs and structures, echoes are created. The machine generates the echoes into real-time images on a computer screen that can show the organs, movement, and blood flow. Ultrasound is commonly used to monitor pregnant women and their unborn babies. It is also used to guide a needle to do a biopsy or injection. The technology is non-invasive and does not emit radiation.

MRI is also noninvasive and does not involve radiation. It uses powerful magnets, radio waves and computers to obtain highly detailed, cross-sectional images of various parts of the body. It is used to investigate and diagnose conditions that affect soft tissue such as tumors, certain cancers, and joint, spinal, and ligament injuries and disease. It is commonly used to determine the extent of injury or disease of internal organs such as the brain and in the digestive system.

Ai Medical Imaging Ceo Peter Solodko“Ultrasound may be good at producing soft tissue images that don’t show up on X-rays,” Peter Solodko indicated. “However, it is limited in some parts of the body because the sound waves can’t go through air, such as the lungs, or through bone.”

MRI is a preferred technology for conditions that involve dense or large areas, while ultrasound can only view one small section at a time. Ultrasound images are not as detailed as MRI scans and cannot show whether a tumor is cancerous.

“Ultrasounds allow clinicians to observe what happens during movement, to see blood flow through arteries, for example,” Solodko explained. “But ultrasounds can’t show the structure inside joints. Because of that, MRI is the better choice to evaluate bone, cartilage and other structures inside and around a joint.”

“There are clear criteria regarding when to use either technology,” Peter Solodko concluded. “It’s up to the referring physician to determine which procedure is best given the individual patient’s situation.”

Hot this week

Cartessa Aesthetics Partners with Classys to Bring EVERESSE to the U.S. Market

Classys, which is listed on the KOSDAQ, is one of South Korea's most distinguished aesthetic technology manufacturers, with devices distributed in 80+ markets globally. This partnership marks Classys's official entry into the American marketplace, with Cartessa Aesthetics as the exclusive distributor for EVERESSE, launched under the Volnewmer brand in current global markets.

Stryker Launches Next-Generation of SurgiCount+

Now integrated with Stryker's Triton technology, SurgiCount+ addresses two key challenges: retained surgical sponges and blood loss assessment. Integrating these previously separate digital solutions provides the added benefit of a more efficient, streamlined workflow for hospitals notes Stryker.

Nevro Receives CE Mark In Europe for It’s HFX iQ™ Spinal Cord Stimulation System

Nevro notes HFX iQ is the first and only SCS system with artificial intelligence (AI) technology that combines high-frequency (10 kHz) therapy built on landmark evidence that uses ongoing cloud data insights to deliver personalized pain relief

Recor Medical Reports: CMS Grants Distinct TPT Device Code and Category to Recor Medical for Ultrasound Renal Denervation

The approval of TPT offers incremental reimbursement payments for outpatient procedures performed with ultrasound renal denervation for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. It becomes effective January 1, 2025, and is expected to remain effective for up to three years notes Recor Medical.

Jupiter Endovascular Reports | 1st U.S. Patient Treated with Jupiter Shape-shifting Thrombectomy Device

“Navigation challenges during endovascular procedures are often underappreciated and have led to under-adoption of life-saving procedures, such as pulmonary embolectomy. We have purpose-built our Endoportal Control technology to solve these issues and make important endovascular procedures accessible to more clinicians and their patients who can benefit from them,” said Carl J. St. Bernard, Jupiter Endovascular CEO. “This first case in the U.S. could not have gone better, and appears to validate the safety and performance we are seeing in our currently-enrolling European SPIRARE I study.”