Dazzling speed. Elegant form. Boundless flexibility. Sounds like a horse race, doesn’t it? In a way, it is. The same words could be used to describe three-dimensional (3D) ultrasound as it dusts a field of flashy competitors, summoning strengths unavailable elsewhere.
3D ultrasound makes relationships among organs, arteries and vessels easier to see and understand; 3D reconstruction yields more precise reference points and allows more accurate measurements than 2D images do; and it’s safer and less expensive than 3D MR, X-ray and CT.
Considered an also-ran going into the millennium, however, some still wonder what to do with it. “We are not using 3D ultrasound for anything at all,” says Jonathan B. Kruskal, M.D., director of abdominal imaging and associate professor of radiology at Harvard Medical School in Boston. “Even though all our machines can all do 3D imaging, we have still to find a single practical use for this technology.”
But, of course, this niche technology does have its share of loyalists who tout its merits of adding a new dimension to diagnosis.
“I would say in 2000, probably 5 to 7 percent of new ultrasound units were sold with 3D,” says Monali Patel, medical imaging analyst for the San Jose, Calif., market research firm Frost and Sullivan. “That’s roughly 500 to 550 units [in the U.S.]. I don’t think the expectation for the ultrasound market for 3D applications is the same as it has been for 3D with CT and MR. There’s a lot more resistance, and the technology still needs to be improved for more people to use it.”
Please refer to the September 2001 issue for the complete story. For information on article reprints, contact Martin St. Denis
