Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
As a radiologist, we use both CT, or Computer Tomography and MRI, Magnetic Resonance Imaging.
Both are robust and excellent tools and, if you ask me, have revolutionized modern medicine.
They’ve enabled the diagnosis of disease processes previously requiring surgical or
open biopsy through the use of these technologies. The major difference though is in their ability
to image different things, and the way they image things.
CT uses medical radiation, or X-rays to image small objects with fine detail. It’s excellent
for looking for lung nodules and imaging the coronary arteries.
MRI on the other hand, is the gold standard, the single best non-invasive tool for imaging
the soft tissues masses, bones and joints, the brain, and now evolving into the heart
and the small bowel. And unlike CT, MR uses a large magnet, and does not use medical ionizing
radiation.
The biggest driver in my practice in the twenty-first century as a radiologist, is trying to provide
the most appropriate test for each patient that come into our department. CT is a robust
tool, but it does result in radiation exposure to the patient. Appropriateness is key. MR
when it is in fact the most appropriate test, should be used first and foremost, because
of its benefits of the lack of ionizing radiation.
So, it all comes down to risk-benefit. If CT is the appropriate test, I would perform
it on myself, for my family member without hesitation. On the other hand, if MR is the
appropriate test, we should certainly select it, and not just defer to CT because it is
more available.