Grapefruit USA Inc (GPFT)

[goldcoastoh]

hi joe -- first i'll say this:

i actually posted a brief reply to supercleetus, on that thread... i recognized his moniker as he was interested in an ultrasound contrast agent for myocardio-perfusion that went to an fda advisory committee last december (2008)... it got shot out of the water by the nuc med industry reps there... and plus a really unreal biostatisician on the advisory committee... regardless i digress... actually superc was either in that or was/is in NEPH...

anyway...

i also posted the link to the medison isi-2500 korea connection here... isi-2500 is a mobile fluoro/c-arm unit.

link:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=42168509

a few replies that followed my post as linked above helped me to better understand the relationship between medison and the company imaging services (the "prequel" to IMGG).

now, it is correct that the medison company today specializes in ultrasound... back when i posted that link to them here (the link above) i tried to dig up any current interest with which they (medison) might have in fluoroscopy... i couldn't find any... it was merely my speculation, as i had posted, that when dean talks about overseas/asian markets as far as production goes, he probably perhaps is speaking about his ties/or inroads through medison... a few posts i believe after that earlier post (link above) i think mentions that the relationship may not be all that happy today... but nonetheless, in roads are laid imho to provide insight to his overseas/asian statements, i think even specifically mentioning korea at one point... as far as manufacturing if they (IMGG) so choose to go that route.

ultrasound is realtime, and 3d/4d ultrasound imaging is not new. anywhere i don't mention 3d/4d in this post, you can assume that the word ultrasound refers to 2d ultrasound.

the ultrasound imaging chain (from acquisition to image viewing) is vastly different from that of x-ray (in this case, fluoro). the physics are completely different, echo vs. x-ray photon attenuation... this means that as there are differences between MRI and CT, although each does sectional viewing, the goals of each device are different...as are the goals different (and thus reasons for ordering/prescription for) between ultrasound and x-ray/fluoro.

there is no conceivable way that IMGG, stole technology for the DViS from them (medison), as that dillusional poster on yahoo claims.

moreover, although i don't know this for sure, it is a safe bet on my part that medison did not invent 3d/4d ultrasound...

moreover, 2d ultrasound has been called thee functional imaging modality for soft tissue...even moreso than MRI (a soft tissue image modality). the reason why is this... you can look at soft tissue in dynamic/motion... in other words... imagine if you will, the athletic trainer (either trained specially in diagnostic ultrasound) or a sonographer for a NFL franchise looking at the rotator cuff of an injured quarter back on the side lines...some are doing this. with ultrasound it's possible for the injured arm to be moved to let the viewer (trainer/sonographer) inspect/examine the rotator cuff (soft tissue) at the shoulder joint under a dynamic/functional situation. with MRI, if you move the shoulder while acquiring the image, you'll utterly ruin the image.

4d ultrasound is most notably being used to get a "pretty picture" of babies in the womb... the diagnostic component of 4d is not clearly delineated yet to my knowledge... and actually it is a "convoluted" image...and doesn't have good contrast resolution - in laymans terms it really just stacks images up to make up a pic in 4d mode.

it is also true that ultrasound can be used for interventional procedures... particularly needle-guidance... yet, most spine specialist aren't really using it per se yet. the image contrast leaves something to be desired. the best needle-guidance i've seen is to place an i.v. in a patient that's a hard stick... i.e., hard to get a tap for whatever reason, could be as simple as said patient is dehydrated.

or how bout this, let say someone is going to have prostate seeds implanted... well, here's a situation at this time in the O.R., that involves nuclear medicine, fluoroscopy, and ultrasound...

to sum up, 3d/4d sonography has its place...2d ultrasound can be used in realtime to assess things (the things being soft tissue). ultrasound does not provide anything close to the contrast resolution or clarity that fluoroscopy does... i'll say this though, that ultrasound is gaining in areas of applications... but its role won't replace x-ray based imaging. while there are somethings that lend themselves well to being imaged in ultrasound (such as heart valves, babies, and bladders) there are many things that don't...

a final plug for the x-ray side of the house, really because of the use of contrast media (iodinated contrast dye) most things ultimately can be viewed by plain films, fluoro, or CT...