Review - Research Paper Example

28 September Review: Commendations: This paper is basically based on contemplating the concise yet informative report based on Intraoperative Magnetic Resonance Imaging (IMRI) which has rapidly become the highly preferred modality for musculoskeletal and neurological imaging in clinical practice since its introduction. The report is largely centered on highlighting the majorly beneficial IMRI systems available in the market and based on their specialties and disadvantages, which of them are most suitable to be incorporated in the department by the physicians.

While briefly comparing the modality of IMRI with CT and ultrasound to identify that IMRI presents no limitations when it comes to neurological imaging, the report does not lag behind in discussing the primarily important applications of IMRI. It is claimed by the report that with advancements made in IMRI systems over time, not only the scan time is reduced resulting in minimum patient exposure but the image quality in terms of contrast and resolutions has also dramatically enhanced. Affirmations: Starting with the GE Double Donut system which was the first ever IMRI system introduced, a question can definitely be raised about the advantages mentioned in the report about this system like if superior access to the patient and no patient movement required during the imaging procedure happen to be the reasons enough for the level of popularity this system amassed?

Not enough credible facts related to imaging time and contrast quality are mentioned in the advantages of any of the systems talked about in the report, which leaves the readers doubtful to some extent about the advantages associated with IMRI systems available currently in terms of time and quality. Though there is much detail contained in the report about the core technicalities associated with IMRI systems like low field and high field systems, one would definitely like to get more information about the pulse sequences running in these systems.

Also, some questions concerning the benefits of IMRI related to breast examinations and how it can be preferred over mammography for breast cancer detection remain unanswered. Recommendations: One of the most effective improvements which can be made to this report would be going into less detail about the IMRI magnets and hardcore physics of the low field and high field IMRI systems, while relying more on introducing the benefits in terms of image quality, exposure time, and how capable a certain IMRI system is of imaging a totally disabled person who cannot cooperate with the physician in any way possible.

Another recommendation would be including more comprehensively contemplated disadvantages related to the major IMRI systems, so that a physician who is novice in the field of imaging and who cannot understand the physics of these systems having never studied radiology, could develop a better idea as to purchase which system for his/her clinic. Though the report stresses that IMRI remains the imaging modality of choice, it does not provide enough information on why is that other than reduced exposure time and minimum patient movement.

More information should be presented about if IMRI can be considered more valuable modality than mammography for breast cancer detection or not.