Esaote® extremity MRI scanners
Evidence Overview
Background
- Esaote® low-field extremity magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanners are intended to complement, not replace, conventional high-field MRI scanners. They offer an additional option for musculoskeletal (MSK) imaging.
- The current evidence on the diagnostic accuracy and efficacy of low-field MRI (<1 Tesla (T)) scanners compared with high-field (1.5 T and 3 T) devices is limited. A pilot study found that the 0.31 T Esaote® O-Scan produced lower anatomic detail than a 3 T scanner for fine wrist structures in healthy volunteers, but was better tolerated by patients than the 3 T scanner. A diagnostic performance study showed that a 0.2 T Esaote® extremity scanner detected recurrent tears in postoperative knee arthrography with acceptable sensitivity and, in some measures, superior specificity compared with a 1.5 T scanner.
- No clinical studies directly compare adverse events between low-field and high-field MRI systems. While low-field MRI may reduce risks related to specific absorption rate, implant interactions, and acoustic exposure, the absence of comparative clinical safety data limits firm conclusions.
- Extremity MRI scanners may provide a positive patient experience compared with traditional high-field systems. Features such as an open design, quieter operation, larger bore diameter and flexible coils enhance patient comfort and may increase scan completion rates. These features are particularly beneficial for patients who are claustrophobic, anxious and have certain implants.
- Further data collection is needed to establish the diagnostic accuracy, clinical effectiveness and safety of low-field MRI extremity scanners like Esaote® compared with conventional MRI technology, either through published clinical studies or robust local evaluations.
- There are no published studies directly comparing the cost effectiveness of Esaote® extremity MRI scanners or any low-field MRI scanners versus conventional high-field MRI scanners in clinical populations. Low-field MRI scanners have lower upfront capital costs and reduced annual operating expenses compared with high-field systems, which may make low-field MRI a more economically viable option for expanding imaging capacity, particularly in settings with resource and infrastructure limitations.
IMTO
Health service organisation and delivery
17 December 2025
Esaote
