Dear Editor,
I read with considerable interest the original article titled “Life cycle costing as a decision making tool for technology acquisition in radio-diagnosis” by Chakravarty et al published in Med J Armed Forces India 2014; 71: 38–42.1 Having worked with both 1.5T and 3T MRI, it was interesting to read your well conceived article on MRI life cycle costing. I have a few practical points to make.
Better coil technology and other factors have significantly improved 1.5T image qualities and it is still the practical choice while setting up a new MRI facility in our armed forces set-up.
However, a 3T machine is much better at functional brain imaging specially spectroscopy for metabolite spectral resolution and for MR Angiography. 3T MRI offers a definitely higher MRI image resolution for identifying structural changes in joint imaging. These are the two key areas which need interrogation so frequently in our serving population. Vascular imaging may need lesser contrast in 3T compared to 1.5T, offsetting the unit scan cost to some extent. Better SNR at 3T practically obviates the need for endocavitary coil use, further increasing patient experience and comfort.
However, to produce the best results out of the machine, we will need better trained and dedicated technicians to produce the best out of the 3T machine, something which usually becomes almost impossible, given our service constraints.
Reference
- 1.Chakravarty A., Debnath J. Life cycle costing as a decision making tool for technology acquisition in radio-diagnosis. Med J Armed Forces India. 2015;71:38–42. doi: 10.1016/j.mjafi.2014.10.004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]