Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Imaging Breakthrough "Sees" Lung Disease

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the good-vibrations dept.

Roland Piquepaille writes "According to BusinessWeek, an Israeli startup, aptly named Deep Breeze, has developed a high-tech replacement for the 200-year-old stethoscope. This noninvasive device can draw, in seconds, an image of your lungs by listening to its vibrations. The Vibration Response Imaging (VRI) system could already be used in Israel, Europe and South Korea. Last month, the US Food and Drug Administration approved its introduction in the US. But don't expect to see one of these systems used by your local physician anytime soon. This VRI system will carry a price tag of over $40K."

6 of 114 comments (clear)

  1. Is that a lot? by lawpoop · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But don't expect to see one of these systems used by your local physician anytime soon. This VRI system will carry a price tag of over $40K. Is that really so much money that a local doctor can't afford it? I would expect a GP not to have it, just because he doesn't do enough long-disease screening to cover the cost. Probably the local hospital and a specialist would have it.

    But is $40K a lot as far as medical devices cost? How much is the x-ray machine at the doctor's office, or the ultrasound equipment at the heart specialist?
    --
    Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
    -- Pablo Picasso
  2. Expensive? by knivesx11 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That really no where near the price of a MRI machine so I'm pretty sure that it is as capable as the article makes it sound than thats not that much to spend. Several hospitals in my area have spent 100+ million in renovations.

    1. Re:Expensive? by tgatliff · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What I find interesting is that checking lung inhalation capacity is only one small task for a stethoscope. How is imaging the lungs going to help checking for heart valve / murmur problems?

      Meaning, from a marketing standpoint, saying that their product "replaces" the stethoscope is sexy to say, but actually pulling it off is a completely different thing all together...

  3. Cost vs need by east+coast · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The real question is how often will this be used? Not every doctor is going to need this as, it seems, this is going to start out as a specialist item. Your local hospital may only have need for one of these things in the long run.

    In any case this is a good step forward and I'm glad to hear about it...

    Now, where did I put that pack of Camels???

    --
    Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
  4. PICTURES, DANG IT by MBCook · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why, when there is an article about something visual, especially a revolutionary new visualization system, do they never show pictures.

    I hate that.

    If you are reporting on a neat visual thingy,... SHOW ME THE THINGY. Even a picture of the machine would be a plus, even if it looks exactly like an MRI or some other machine. I don't care if the picture may mean nothing to me. Put a little caption trying to explain it. It doesn't matter, show me SOMETHING.

    Does anyone have a picture?

    This should be criminal.

    (the annoyed MBCook)

    --
    Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
  5. Actually by everphilski · · Score: 4, Insightful

    $40k for medical equiptment isn't bad. Compare it to the cost of a MRI machine, or even a 'low cost' (which is $100k-$200k) x-ray machine. Radiosurgery machines (for cancer) run $3-5 million. Having an accurate diagnosis for $40k is almost cheap by those standards.