Researchers have crunched the numbers on the total financial and environmental burden of owning and operating MR systems, and their findings suggest that upgrading existing systems, or buying refurbished, could save facilities half a million dollars per unit compared to buying brand new.

The research compared three MR replacement strategies: buying a new scanner ("linear replacement"), upgrading an existing scanner on site ("circular upgrade"), and purchasing a refurbished unit ("circular refurbishment").

Over a 10-year life cycle, the circular upgrade model reduced total cost of ownership by 20%, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by up to 8% under a conventional energy grid, and material use by 92%, compared to buying a new MR scanner. These savings were largely attributed to reusing the scanner’s magnet and housing, which avoids the extraction, manufacturing, and shipping impacts associated with new components.
The refurbished option delivered a 15% cost reduction, a 4% drop in emissions, and 59% less use of primary materials. As with upgrading existing systems, reuse of components — especially critical raw materials like copper, aluminum, and helium — played a central role in lowering the environmental and financial costs associated with refurbished systems.

While energy efficiency remains a focus in medical imaging, the study found that energy use accounts for only 13% to 16% of MR operating costs. In contrast, materials accounted for up to 49% under linear replacement, suggesting that strategies targeting equipment manufacturing and reuse may yield larger gains in sustainability and cost savings.

The study, which was conducted at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in partnership with Philips Medical Systems Nederland, underscores the importance of embedding total cost of ownership and life cycle metrics into procurement decisions. The findings were based on one month of Ingenia Elition utilization, and a 3T MR scanner from Philips, selected because of the availability of circular options.

It did not include construction and installation-related costs, which the authors suspect would further favor on-site upgrades in both cost and emissions.

"Material reuse is the main driver to reduce cost and primary material consumption," the authors wrote. “While there are costs related to reusing material ... these are still lower compared to primary materials, translating into savings of $420,000 to 520,000 per MR.”

When run on a clean energy grid powered by solar, GHG reductions rose significantly — up to 37% for circular upgrades and 20% for refurbished units.

The study, published in the Journal of the American College of Radiology (JACR), points to the need for standardized circularity frameworks to support broader adoption in healthcare imaging.

Parts And Service Homepage