From the January/February 2011 issue of HealthCare Business News magazine


I think that the cloud based model has tremendous potential for increasing accessibility of the technology, because it opens up a segment of the market, where the volume was a little low, or unpredictable, so people avoided getting into advanced visualization, and as a result patients are denied access to that kind of technology in the provision of care. Cloud lets you dip your toe in the water without a big commitment.

What’s the kind of market you see most willing to take this on?


If you’re a 3D service provider providing services to a large number of customers, working up their cases, this kind of cloud technology is a perfect fit. Or if you’re a radiology group that has a number of imaging centers and the radiologists are providing services for a number of hospitals in a geographical region, cloud is again a perfect fit.

We’re also seeing on the research side of the house tremendous interest, because any kind of research based on imaging typically involves multiple centers…

And then I think the fourth area that’s very interesting is we’re seeing those very low-volume users, who may not be particularly 3D imaging specialists, that are also very interested. So if you’re a cardiac team that’s doing a couple cardiac CTs a week, it’s very difficult to invest in a full-blown 3D solution. But if you can access all those tools on a low-volume basis, it makes sense.

You mentioned the Web access, and that brings us to mobile viewing. Where do you see this going in imaging?

I think there’s no question that mobile devices, like tablets and phones, offer tremendous value in terms of getting access to imaging data. So being a 3D provider, we developed mobile support for 3D visualization. We have an iPhone app, an iPad app. We embrace it as an extension of our Web access.

Being able to use a mobile device has many really interesting new dimensions. In Japan, for example, we had a trial of our system at a university medical system, and the surgeons obtained the iPad. They took it into the operating room, in a research setting, and were able to use the iPad in surgery to address an issue they could not address until the iPad was available. They took the 3D image, manipulated it on the iPad, and laid the iPad down right next to the patient’s head. So they had the same vasculature in the same orientation in the 3D image right next to the actual patient. That was never possible before, when the monitor was fixed to the wall or a boom arm.

Do you see radiologists making diagnoses off devices?

If you think about a mobile device, there’s the question of the marketing claim regulation by the FDA: whether it’s suitable for diagnostic use. It seems a bit odd to me to make a big focus on diagnosing from a phone. I don’t think radiologists or other physicians are really seeking permission or the ability to make the diagnostic interpretations from their phones…

January/February 2011 Magazine

Read more stories from the January/February 2011 issue

More Voices