Wong et al., QIMS 2017 (PMC5418154)
1.5T RT-sim: two Flex Large 4 vs Head/Neck 20. ACR criteria passed. T1 SNR ~95 vs ~170 (~44% lower). Low-contrast detectability fell with SNR. Geometry was fine.
Evidence & Clinical
The table-side half of a problem OEMs already spent a decade solving at the coil
For radiologists and physicists. Claims are stacked by how hard they are to attack. Coil SNR and DTI papers measure coils and tilt fixtures — not KyphoLift. Prevalence (GMI) is below.
The claim
Leave the coil in its designed pose. Raise the thorax so the occiput can drop into the housing.
Driemel / Siemens patents (US10545203 and family) made the head/neck array tiltable for pathological cervical-spine change — ankylosing spondylitis, torticollis, non-neutral necks. BioMatrix Head/Neck 20 TCS shipped lockable 0°/9°/18° plus CoilShim. MAGNETOM Flash names kyphotic patients as a tilt example. GE GEM Comfort Tilt and Philips dStream tilt sold the same access story. KyphoLift does not replace those coils. It seats more patients into the array the site already owns.
Those patents do not claim single-technologist workflow, OSHA lifting, or slot recovery. Those remain table-side. Do not put them in Siemens’ mouth.
Flex paddles vs the dedicated array
When the anterior lid will not close, the workaround is measured. Use these papers for the workaround — not as KyphoLift SNR.
Kaza et al., JACMP 2022 (PMC9797171)
3T volunteer SNR vs HN20: 0.51 ± 0.18 (two Flex Large 4) and 0.58 ± 0.19 (two UltraFlex Large 18). Authors: replacing a dedicated H/N coil with general-purpose flex compromises image quality.
Lee et al., JACMP 2021 (PMC8130245)
ACR phantom on a flex-tilt support at 0°/10°/18°. All metrics still within ACR; ANOVA found detectable SNR and uniformity cost. Measures a tilt fixture, not KyphoLift. Not “tilt fails image quality.”
DTI / orientation (Kleban 2023; Tax 2021)
FA varied by up to ~20% with fiber angle to B0; orientation explained up to ~7% of whole-brain DT variance (Kleban, Imaging Neuroscience). Tax 2021 is a T2-orientation paper on a 0°/9°/18° comfort coil at CUBRIC — not confirmed as BioMatrix H/N 20 TCS hardware. No percent warp reduction is claimed for KyphoLift.
KyphoLift is not B0-neutral. Elevating lungs and shoulders changes thoracic-inlet field. The trade is coil-tilt error for patient-elevation error. CoilShim, if present, still applies at 0°.
What we will not put on a radiologist slide
- 25–50% re-scan reduction as if it were a paper.
- Lee or Kaza percentages as KyphoLift SNR.
- “Section 504 requires this device.”
- “KyphoLift does not affect B0.”
- GMI $2,944 as a U.S. scan price.
- A before/after we have not published. IRB is not a result.
Device facts you can cite: Class I, 510(k) exempt, listed; intended as a positioning tool for patients who cannot lie flat and stay coil-ready during head/neck MRI; SWL 550 lb; MR Conditional to 3.0T. Not a scanner, not a coil, not a 510(k)-cleared implant.
Prevalence
21.4% of MRI patients require extended exam time
“Globally, approximately 21.4% of patients undergoing MRI scans require extended time to conduct the scan attributed to various reasons including age-related discomfort, injuries, hearing or cognitive impairments, claustrophobia, and others.”
Global Market Insights, Magnetic Resonance Imaging Systems Market, 2024–2032, Assessment of Limitations During MRI Scans.
GMI is counting extra time, not a diagnosis. The physical half of that extra time is the KyphoLift problem: kyphosis, obesity, spinal fusions, pain, limited mobility, orthopedic and geriatric patients who cannot hold a coil-ready position. The part we do not claim is claustrophobia and extra time that is only explaining the scan.
GMI’s split, mapped to the device
Complement of “no limitations” (76.7–80.8%) is the 21.4%. Almost all of it is a positioning-and-stillness problem. One slice is not.
| Slice | Share of MRI patients | KyphoLift |
|---|---|---|
| No extra-time limitation | 76.7–80.8% | Not the device problem. |
| Injuries | 9–13% | Yes — trauma, orthopedic, cannot lie flat and hold. |
| Geriatric population with disability | 3.0–3.5% | Yes when the extra time is positioning, support, or stillness — habitus, mobility, pain. |
| Cancer (geriatric) | 1.7–2.3% | Yes when they cannot tolerate a flat, stable table. Protocol length alone is not a lift problem. |
| Other conditions | 4.0–4.5% | Yes for obesity, fusions, arthritis, limited ROM. No for extra time that is only explaining the scan. |
| Claustrophobia | 1.5–2.6% | No. Open-bore, coaching, sedation — not KyphoLift. |
Use on quotes
~19%
GMI 21.4% extra-time minus ~2% claustrophobia (Fig. 1 / §1.2.4). Derived, not a GMI headline. 20.4% (21.4 − 1.0) is retired. Not kyphosis-only.
Leave out
~2%
Claustrophobia (GMI 1.5–2.6%). Fear of the bore is not a lift-and-hold problem. Do not put those patients in the recovered-minute math.
Cite GMI for prevalence. Not for minutes.
Their 15-minute cycle is a model, not a US slot. GMI writes 10 minutes of imaging + 5 minutes of handling. US neuro slots are typically 30–45 minutes (Andre 2015; Beker AJR 2017). Use GMI for who takes longer. Use your own timestamps for how many minutes.
Do not host or paste the report. GMI marks the file confidential and forbids circulating it. Cite section 1.1. Keep the PDF in your files. It is not on this site.
Next step
Better positioning. Safer patient handling. More efficient MRI.
Vendor-agnostic. No installation. No extensive training. No consumables. No scanner downtime. Tell us about your MRI workflow. We’ll help you find the right configuration and a model that fits your volume.