Is this as good as it seems, or are there features this lacks which prevents it from being that useful in the hospital setting?
$150k machines come with a high price tag because they also come with a reputation (and even financial guarantees) of accuracy. This minimizes risk to the hospital.
This is a new device, from a new manufacturer, based on a new technology. Health systems will be extremely hesitant about adopting this until it has some real world experience. They'll want to make sure that they if their are risks with the device and if the manufacturer looks to be around in the long run.
I could see this being somewhat popular when the decision is the alternative is no ultrasound at all. If the health system has a proven system, they'll like look to use that before this device.
Small portable ultrasounds like this are gaining popularity in prehospital care (in ambulances, etc).
This isn't really a new concept though. Things like the GE Vscan have been around for years.
Caveat, I have no idea how much a commercial ultrasound machine costs. But it's one machine Michael, what could it cost? Ten thousand dollars?
I suspect this would be more useful for veterinarians--especially in one-horse towns. :)
I could imagine the standard of care changing, however, and that might make a difference. If cheap ultrasounds become ubiquitous and more physicians are trained in their use, the use of ultrasound among generalists might increase, freeing up specialists to take a more narrow focus. I could see this technology being particularly useful in emergency and critical care settings.
1 = http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20141216/blog/312169...
2 = http://www.choosingwisely.org/patient-resources/echocardiogr...
Resolution is driven by the number of piezoes. Previous low cost ultrasound sensors skimped on the number in the array, which limited effective resolution. Aside from the piezos themselves, you need enough real time inputs to process them.
It seems like this one does better, though details are scant.