Phillips Pulsera vs GE OEC 9900?

[NorthernDoc]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Heys guys, looking for your opinion on one of these machines. Money is of no importance, but it has to be one of the two...unfortunately, no siemens ...

Any opinion on image quality, ease of use. I used the OEC 9900 during my pain fellowship in sydney...I liked it for basic procedures and neurostim implants. The phillips seems kindda basic....

Any help would be greatly appreciated. Got to make a decision this week.

They ll both have DSA...9 inch amplifier...the OEC will be the C series for full range during oblique views.

 

[lurkingrue]

*Unfortunately* no Siemens??? Having used all three, I'd say I'd take a sharp stick in the eye before going back to Siemens.

If money is no object (how is that possible?!?) I'd see about the Phillips Veradius. As far as Pulsera vs OEC, I personally like the Phillips... but if you're into bells & whistles, maybe the OED is more your thing.

I don't think you can go wrong with either in terms of reliability and image quality.

 

[hyperalgesia]

I think I'm the only one on this board who prefers OEC to Philips. I've never compared the 9900 and pulsera, side by side, on the same patient, with the same table with optimal calibration, etc. I can't tell the difference in image quality, though others have emphatically endorsed Philips>OEC for image quality.

I am also about to get one of these. I was also thinking about the new pulsera with the flat detector (Veradius) all digital system. I was able to use it once when Philips was testing them. Honestly I couldn't really tell the difference with that one either.

 

[Jcm800]

Philips

 

[Ligament]

I did an exhaustive and dangerous study on the Pulsera Vs. 9900 a couple years ago. It is posted in the private forum. In the end, the Pulsera won, I purchased it and really liked it. See my sticky in the private forum.

 

[nvrsumr]

Anyone have comments on the philips enduro? Much less expensive machine.

small hijack 🙂

 

[lurkingrue]

Regarding the Veradius, I think the two main selling points are:

1) Minimize distortion as you approach the edges of your field (I got to do some side-by-side comparisons at an ISIS meeting a while back, and it was pretty impressive. Parallax distortion was really better).

2) Supposedly minimizes "excess" radiation exposure.

If you can't guess, I'm more skeptical about #2, but I can certainly attest to #1.

 

[lurkingrue]

Oh, and I think most would agree about the 9900 vs the Pulsera -- images are pretty comparable. The interface, options, etc are really what distinguish the two in my opinion.

 

[mid|ine]

+1 for the pulsera

I have had it for two years and its great.

 

[wscott]

another for pulsera. I've had two in 4-5 years (changed locations). No major problems. Works well.