수술중 MRI 시장 : 자장 강도별, 스캐너 유형별, 시스템 유형별, 용도별, 최종사용자별 - 세계 예측(2025-2032년)

The Intraoperative MRI Market is projected to grow by USD 4.80 billion at a CAGR of 12.59% by 2032.

An authoritative overview of intraoperative MRI evolution, clinical drivers, and integration challenges shaping adoption across modern surgical programs

Intraoperative magnetic resonance imaging has transitioned from a novel adjunct to an integral tool that reshapes surgical precision and perioperative decision-making. This introduction frames the clinical, technological, and organizational drivers that have converged to accelerate adoption across specialty practices. Advances in magnet design, imaging sequences, and integration with surgical workflows are enabling teams to verify resection margins, minimize repeat procedures, and reduce complication rates while preserving function. At the same time, improvements in low-field hardware, mobility solutions, and compatibility with operative instrumentation are widening the spectrum of procedures that can incorporate real-time imaging.

Clinicians, hospital administrators, and device planners are navigating a more complex landscape where clinical efficacy must align with operational constraints and staff competencies. Reimbursement pathways and evidence generation through prospective studies are shaping institutional willingness to invest, while technology vendors are responding with modular systems and service models that emphasize workflow integration and training. Consequently, the narrative of intraoperative MRI is one of pragmatic innovation: technologies are maturing into practical solutions that address demonstrated clinical needs, yet successful deployment requires multidisciplinary alignment, robust change management, and clear measures of patient-centered value.

How technological convergence, workflow integration, and clinical evidence formation are driving a fundamental reshaping of intraoperative MRI adoption and practice

The intraoperative MRI landscape is undergoing transformative shifts driven by converging technological innovation, evolving clinical evidence, and changes in care delivery models. Recent advances in magnet engineering and imaging software have reduced the barriers to intraoperative use, enabling both high-fidelity high-field solutions and flexible low-field systems that can be accommodated in a variety of operating environments. Simultaneously, the emergence of movable and stationary system designs has created options for institutions to align capital investment with procedural volumes and facility constraints. These hardware innovations are complemented by improved imaging sequences and intraoperative protocols that enhance tissue contrast, mitigate artifacts, and shorten acquisition times, thereby making intraoperative MRI more compatible with the tempo of surgery.

Beyond hardware, workflow-centric developments-such as integration with neuronavigation platforms, instrument-tracking technologies, and intraoperative planning tools-are shifting the value proposition from image acquisition alone to comprehensive intraoperative decision support. In parallel, the clinical evidence base for intraoperative MRI, particularly in neurosurgical tumor resection and select orthopedic and oncologic applications, is solidifying. This evidence is catalyzing new care pathways that prioritize single-stage definitive procedures over staged interventions. Finally, the vendor landscape is responding with service models emphasizing training, remote support, and outcome monitoring, which further lowers implementation risk and accelerates clinician confidence in intraoperative MRI.

The ripple effects of United States tariff measures in 2025 on procurement, supply chain resilience, and operational continuity for intraoperative MRI programs

As global supply chains and trade policies evolve, tariff dynamics introduced in the United States in 2025 have become a salient factor for manufacturers, distributors, and health systems involved with intraoperative imaging solutions. These tariff measures have materially affected the sourcing calculus for core components including superconducting materials, specialized gradients, and certain electronic subsystems that are often manufactured across multiple jurisdictions. In response, suppliers have had to reassess procurement strategies, qualify alternative vendors, and in some instances redesign components to mitigate exposure to affected tariff lines. This has resulted in near-term increases in production lead times as supply chains were revalidated and dual-sourcing options were operationalized.

Clinicians and hospital procurement teams have observed the downstream effects as capital procurement cycles adjusted to account for extended lead times and revised delivery schedules. Consequently, institutions have prioritized strategic procurement planning and closer collaboration with vendors to establish guaranteed delivery windows and transparent component sourcing. At the same time, manufacturers have accelerated regionalization and in-country assembly where feasible to minimize tariff sensitivity and provide more resilient delivery commitments. These operational shifts have implications for service contracts and spare-part logistics, prompting health systems to revisit lifecycle support agreements to ensure continuity of care and minimize the risk of equipment downtime during critical surgical periods.

Segment-level insights that reveal how field strength, scanner architecture, system mobility, clinical application, and end-user setting determine technology selection and clinical workflows

A nuanced understanding of system segmentation clarifies where clinical needs intersect with technological capabilities and procurement preferences. Based on Field Strength, systems fall into high-field and low-field categories, with high-field designs delivering higher intrinsic contrast and spatial resolution that benefit complex neurosurgical resections, while low-field platforms offer reduced footprint, simpler shielding requirements, and enhanced compatibility with existing operating room infrastructures. Based on Scanner Type, the distinction between closed bore and open bore systems influences patient access and intraoperative ergonomics, where closed bore units typically provide robust image quality for head and select body procedures and open bore designs facilitate surgical access and patient monitoring during imaging.

Further segmentation by System Type differentiates movable systems from stationary systems, an important operational axis that affects capital allocation, room conversion needs, and scheduling flexibility. Movable systems present a compelling choice for facilities seeking to distribute imaging capability across multiple suites without permanent room conversion, whereas stationary systems are often selected by high-volume centers prioritizing image fidelity and integrated OR design. Based on Application, intraoperative MRI is utilized across cardiovascular, neurosurgery, oncology, and orthopedic procedures, with neurosurgery further categorized into craniotomy and spinal surgery subtypes that reflect divergent imaging and workflow requirements; oncology applications are further distinguished between biopsy guidance and tumor resection, each demanding tailored imaging sequences and intraoperative decision protocols. Finally, based on End User, adoption pathways differ between ambulatory surgical centers and hospitals, with hospitals typically investing in integrated programs that support complex, multidisciplinary cases and ambulatory centers favoring cost-effective, streamlined systems suited to high-throughput elective procedures.

Regional dynamics and infrastructure realities across the Americas, Europe Middle East & Africa, and Asia-Pacific that shape adoption pathways and support models for intraoperative MRI

Regional dynamics influence regulatory pathways, procurement behavior, and clinical adoption patterns in meaningful ways. In the Americas, established centers of neurosurgical excellence and integrated health systems have driven early adoption for complex brain tumor resections and advanced intraoperative protocols, supported by dense referral networks and concentrated research activity. This region also exhibits significant demand for modular service arrangements and financing models that align capital investment with operational throughput and clinical outcomes expectations.

In Europe, the Middle East & Africa, institutional diversity leads to heterogeneous adoption patterns: advanced tertiary centers pursue high-field stationary installations to support cutting-edge neurosurgical programs, while resource-constrained facilities assess lower-field or movable options to balance clinical benefits against infrastructure and staffing considerations. Regulatory harmonization and cross-border clinical collaborations further shape procurement decision cycles and evidence generation efforts. In the Asia-Pacific region, rapid expansion of surgical capacity, progressive hospital modernization, and targeted investments in specialty care drive interest in both movable and fixed solutions, with an emphasis on scalability, service reliability, and local support networks. Across these regions, localized training programs, reimbursement frameworks, and supply chain considerations are pivotal in determining the pace and shape of intraoperative MRI adoption.

Competitive and service-driven forces that are reshaping vendor strategies, integration models, and clinical partnerships in the intraoperative MRI ecosystem

The competitive landscape is defined by a small number of established manufacturers, emerging specialized vendors, and service providers focusing on integration, training, and lifecycle support. Established technology providers continue to leverage deep engineering expertise and clinical partnerships to extend modularity, improve imaging sequences, and offer comprehensive service packages that reduce institutional risk during deployment and operation. At the same time, specialist entrants are differentiating through design choices that emphasize mobility, reduced shielding requirements, and simplified user interfaces that lower the barrier for OR teams to adopt intraoperative imaging into routine workflows.

Service partners and systems integrators play an increasingly important role by offering project management, training, and outcome-monitoring programs that translate product capabilities into reliable clinical performance. Collaboration between vendors and clinical centers has produced standardized protocols and shared datasets that inform procedural best practices, while warranty and remote-support models are evolving to ensure uptime and rapid issue resolution. Importantly, procurement preferences reflect a balance between clinical ambition and operational pragmatism: high-volume centers prioritize image fidelity and throughput, whereas smaller facilities emphasize flexibility, total cost of ownership, and vendor responsiveness. These trends underscore the necessity for vendors to pair strong technical offerings with robust commercial and clinical support capabilities.

Actionable operational and strategic recommendations for healthcare leaders to optimize technology selection, deployment, training, and outcome measurement for intraoperative MRI

Industry leaders and hospital executives can take concrete actions to accelerate successful implementation and maximize clinical benefit from intraoperative MRI. First, align clinical stakeholders early in project planning to define case mix, workflow objectives, and training requirements so that technology selection is driven by procedural needs rather than vendor persuasion. Second, prioritize procurement strategies that incorporate lifecycle support, spare-part availability, and clearly defined service-level agreements to protect operative schedules and ensure predictable uptime. Third, consider hybrid deployment models that pair movable systems for distributed access with a centralized stationary unit for complex cases, thereby optimizing capital allocation and clinical coverage.

Fourth, invest in structured training programs and simulation-based credentialing to shorten the clinician learning curve and embed imaging protocols into routine practice. Fifth, establish outcome-monitoring frameworks that track key clinical indicators such as reoperation rates, procedure times, and patient-centered functional outcomes, and use those data to refine protocols and justify continued investment. Finally, maintain close collaboration with vendors to co-develop incremental improvements in imaging protocols, OR ergonomics, and integration with navigation and surgical planning tools, ensuring that technology evolution remains tightly coupled to clinical priorities and operational constraints.

A transparent, evidence-focused research approach integrating clinical literature, technical documentation, and stakeholder interviews to produce actionable insights for decision-makers

The research synthesis underpinning this executive summary combines a structured review of peer-reviewed clinical studies, technical white papers, regulatory filings, and vendor product documentation, complemented by qualitative interviews with clinical leads, procurement specialists, and systems integrators. Information was triangulated across multiple independent sources to develop a coherent narrative of technological trends, adoption drivers, and operational challenges. Emphasis was placed on longitudinal clinical evidence and real-world deployment experiences to ensure that insights are grounded in practical implementation realities rather than promotional statements.

Analytical rigor was applied to interpret device design attributes, workflow implications, and supply-chain vulnerabilities, with attention to variant use-cases across neurosurgery, oncology, orthopedics, and cardiovascular applications. Careful consideration was given to regional regulatory contexts and procurement practices, and sensitivity was maintained to the interplay between clinical efficacy and operational feasibility. Where direct comparative data were limited, qualitative expert judgment was used to synthesize likely programmatic outcomes, and all conclusions prioritize reproducibility and transparency in the underlying assumptions and data sources.

Synthesized conclusions highlighting the clinical value, implementation imperatives, and operational prerequisites for successful intraoperative MRI programs

In conclusion, intraoperative MRI occupies an increasingly central role in surgical programs that prioritize single-stage definitive interventions and superior tissue-sparing outcomes. Technological innovations in field strength versatility, scanner architecture, and system mobility have expanded the set of clinical settings where intraoperative imaging is practical and beneficial. At the same time, evidence maturation in key specialties has clarified where intraoperative MRI delivers measurable clinical benefits, prompting more healthcare leaders to evaluate this modality as part of strategic investments in surgical excellence.

Implementation success depends on more than device performance: it requires integrated planning across clinical teams, procurement, and service partners, as well as ongoing training and outcome measurement. Supply-chain and trade policy developments necessitate proactive procurement planning and robust vendor partnerships to ensure continuity of service. Ultimately, institutions that thoughtfully align clinical objectives with technology selection, training investments, and outcome monitoring will be best positioned to convert intraoperative MRI capability into demonstrable patient and system value.

Table of Contents

1. Preface

• 1.1. Objectives of the Study
• 1.2. Market Segmentation & Coverage
• 1.3. Years Considered for the Study
• 1.4. Currency & Pricing
• 1.5. Language
• 1.6. Stakeholders

2. Research Methodology

3. Executive Summary

4. Market Overview

5. Market Insights

• 5.1. Integration of artificial intelligence driven real time image analysis in intraoperative MRI workflows
• 5.2. Development of ultra high field 7 Tesla intraoperative MRI systems for improved surgical precision
• 5.3. Expansion of portable low field intraoperative MRI units for outpatient and hybrid operating rooms
• 5.4. Strategic collaborations between imaging device manufacturers and robotic surgery companies for integrated iMRI solutions
• 5.5. Rising emphasis on cost effectiveness and workflow optimization in intraoperative MRI adoption and reimbursement models
• 5.6. Regulatory approvals and safety guidelines shaping the development of novel intraoperative MRI contrast agents and protocols
• 5.7. Emerging intraoperative MRI applications in functional neurosurgery enabling real time mapping of brain networks

6. Cumulative Impact of United States Tariffs 2025

7. Cumulative Impact of Artificial Intelligence 2025

8. Intraoperative MRI Market, by Field Strength

• 8.1. High Field
• 8.2. Low Field

9. Intraoperative MRI Market, by Scanner Type

• 9.1. Closed Bore
• 9.2. Open Bore

10. Intraoperative MRI Market, by System Type

• 10.1. Movable Systems
• 10.2. Stationary Systems

11. Intraoperative MRI Market, by Application

• 11.1. Cardiovascular
• 11.2. Neurosurgery
  • 11.2.1. Craniotomy
  • 11.2.2. Spinal Surgery
• 11.3. Oncology
  • 11.3.1. Biopsy Guidance
  • 11.3.2. Tumor Resection
• 11.4. Orthopedic

12. Intraoperative MRI Market, by End User

• 12.1. Ambulatory Surgical Centers
• 12.2. Hospitals

13. Intraoperative MRI Market, by Region

• 13.1. Americas
  • 13.1.1. North America
  • 13.1.2. Latin America
• 13.2. Europe, Middle East & Africa
  • 13.2.1. Europe
  • 13.2.2. Middle East
  • 13.2.3. Africa
• 13.3. Asia-Pacific

14. Intraoperative MRI Market, by Group

• 14.1. ASEAN
• 14.2. GCC
• 14.3. European Union
• 14.4. BRICS
• 14.5. G7
• 14.6. NATO

15. Intraoperative MRI Market, by Country

• 15.1. United States
• 15.2. Canada
• 15.3. Mexico
• 15.4. Brazil
• 15.5. United Kingdom
• 15.6. Germany
• 15.7. France
• 15.8. Russia
• 15.9. Italy
• 15.10. Spain
• 15.11. China
• 15.12. India
• 15.13. Japan
• 15.14. Australia
• 15.15. South Korea

16. Competitive Landscape

• 16.1. Market Share Analysis, 2024
• 16.2. FPNV Positioning Matrix, 2024
• 16.3. Competitive Analysis
  • 16.3.1. Siemens Healthineers AG
  • 16.3.2. GE HealthCare Technologies Inc.
  • 16.3.3. Koninklijke Philips N.V.
  • 16.3.4. Hitachi, Ltd.
  • 16.3.5. Canon Medical Systems Corporation
  • 16.3.6. Shenzhen Mindray Bio-Medical Electronics Co., Ltd.
  • 16.3.7. Neusoft Medical Systems Co., Ltd.
  • 16.3.8. Esaote S.p.A.
  • 16.3.9. FUJIFILM Holdings Corporation
  • 16.3.10. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.