If your orthopedic center still hands patients MRI results on CD, you are relying on a handoff that can quietly slow down care.
CDs persist because they are the lowest common denominator in imaging exchange. When you cannot control what the receiving site can accept, and when studies are large and time-sensitive, burning a disc becomes the path that “works” across the widest set of destinations.
That path is also where delays, rework, and documentation gaps start.
This article will highlight ways orthopedic centers can focus on moving imaging records quickly, reliably, and defensibly. We’ll also discuss how electronic solutions can replace the traditional process of sharing MRI results on CD.
The True Workload of Sharing MRI Results on CD
A request for MRI results on CD is rarely a simple transaction. It creates a string of manual steps your staff must complete immediately. Clinical operations don’t pause for burning, labeling, packaging, logging, and shipping, but orthopedic teams are still pulled away from core work to handle these requests.
Even when the workflow is familiar, it still involves forced context switching. Someone has to stop what they are doing, locate the right study, confirm what needs to be included, verify identifiers, burn the disc, and then document the release. Then it is labeling and packaging, arranging delivery, and making sure the request is tracked correctly so it does not resurface later as an “urgent” follow-up.
The strain doesn’t end when the CD leaves your office. Without shared visibility, the requestor may call for a status update, and your team has to stop and chase tracking or confirm delivery. If anything is off, such as a missing series, the wrong date range, or playback issues on the recipient’s side, you will reburn the disc and restart the cycle.
Shipping adds another layer of uncertainty, and the clock keeps running while the request sits in transit.
That is why CD fulfillment is so costly in 2026. It turns imaging release into a manual production line with constant interruptions, constant follow-up, and just enough rework to keep your team behind.
Why Do Requestors Need Imaging Records on CD
Requests for imaging records on CD are not all the same because the reasons behind the requests are not the same. A disc is often just the most familiar delivery format for a study that needs to move across organizations, timelines, and systems.
Patients often request imaging on CD to carry it to a specialist visit, get a second opinion, or keep their own copy when care is moving between facilities. For many patients, the CD is simply the format they have been told to request.
Referring providers and orthopedic specialists may request a CD when they need the full study for clinical decision-making, not just the radiology report. They may also be dealing with limited interoperability across systems, so a CD becomes the fastest way to obtain the original images in a format they can review and import.
Attorneys and legal requestors may request imaging records on CD as part of record collection for injury claims, litigation, or case review. The goal is typically completeness and portability, and the request may be bundled with broader medical record requests where imaging is expected to be included as part of the record set.
Insurance and payer requestors may request imaging on CD to support utilization review, claim review, or audits where original studies are relevant. In those workflows, the request is often driven by documentation requirements and the need to retain a copy in a review file.
The operational challenge for orthopedic centers is that each requestor type can define “done” differently, which is why CD workflows so often trigger follow-up and rework.
Why Do Orthopedic Centers Still Share MRI Results on CD?
Many discs are created in DICOM format, the standard for medical images. The DICOM Standard’s guidance notes that if you have a CD (or DVD) with medical images, it is most likely a DICOM CD, since most disks are formatted in accordance with the DICOM Standard.
That history explains why CDs became common, especially when systems could not easily exchange imaging electronically. It also explains why CDs still show up in orthopedic workflows today, even when digital exchange is available.
There is another practical reason: images are large. Sending an MRI study is not the same as sending a PDF report. File size and compatibility still shape what organizations choose, especially when imaging is coming from outside facilities.
But “common” is not the same as “reliable.” The same DICOM guidance explains that viewing typically requires a DICOM viewer, and while discs often include a viewer, that is not guaranteed.
What Breaks When Orthopedic Centers Rely on CDs for Sharing MRI Results?
In orthopedics, imaging is not an attachment. It is the visit. The consult depends on imaging review. Surgical planning depends on reviewing the entire study, not just the report. When a clinician cannot open, import, or trust what arrives, the schedule slows down, and the patient waits.
CD failures are not theoretical edge cases. A Journal of Digital Imaging study that tracked image importation from physical media found that 0.6% of CDs were unreadable after multiple attempts on multiple computers. It also found that 1.2% of cases involved the correct patient with different forms of the name or identifier on the same CD. More concerning, 0.1% of CDs contained the wrong patient’s data, and another 0.1% contained data for more than one person.
Those percentages look small until you apply them to routine volume. Even a modest monthly stream of outside studies turns “rare” into recurring. The same study noted that at their volume, a 0.1% wrong-patient rate translated to about one CD per day. That is a steady cadence of troubleshooting, resends, delayed decisions, and disrupted visits, plus a compliance exposure when the disc contains information it should not.
How Much Does It Cost to Burn CDs for Imaging Records?
Most organizations underestimate the cost of CDs because they focus on the price of the blank disc. The higher cost is the process: staff time, rework, and distribution.
A clear example comes from a 2021 Radiology Business report describing Yale New Haven Health. In 2019, the organization burned about 142,000 imaging studies to CDs or DVDs at an average cost of $3.95 each, totaling nearly $550,000 that year before labor, retrieval, shipping, and delivery expenses.
Even when you are not a health system at that scale, handling portable imaging media creates a real operational burden. A 2014 study estimated the total annual expenditure for portable data for imaging (PDI) management at $98,300 for a university hospital.
A simple way to estimate your true cost is to treat CD burning as a repeatable process with measurable inputs. Start with direct costs (media, labels, packaging, shipping when used), then add staff time (burn, verify, document, coordinate, respond to follow-ups), then layer in rework (unreadable discs, missing series, failed imports, resend requests). Once you quantify those inputs, many orthopedic centers find that CDs are more expensive than expected
Is Sharing MRI Results on CD HIPAA Compliant?
Orthopedic centers can share MRI results on a CD compliantly, but proving continued HIPAA compliance requires thorough documentation.
HHS guidance on the right of access emphasizes that covered entities must be able to transmit PHI by mail or email, with a limited exception when email cannot accommodate the file size of requested images. In the event of file-size limitations, the covered entity must offer an alternative method for record release.
That nuance matters. Portable media is an option in certain circumstances, not a requirement, and not automatically the safest approach. HHS also ties feasibility and risk to a covered entity’s Security Rule risk analysis.
For example, when someone requests portable media they provide, whether it is “readily producible” depends on capability and whether it would present an unacceptable risk to the security of PHI on the covered entity’s systems.
In real life, CD workflows tend to create exposure in predictable places: loss or misdelivery with limited proof of what happened, inconsistent documentation when patients carry imaging between providers, limited ability to show who accessed data and when, and disposal practices that vary by person or location. The workflow becomes hardest to defend when it depends on manual reconstruction.
Why Imaging Record Exchange Matters for Patient Care
Imaging is expensive, and volume pressure is not going away. A 2024 study of the U.S. employer-insured population found that nominal spending on imaging increased 35.9% between 2010 and 2021, while imaging’s share of total healthcare spending declined over the same period.
When imaging does not move cleanly, repeat imaging becomes a real downstream risk. A PubMed Central study on duplicate imaging reported overall duplicate imaging frequencies of 2.7% within 7 days, 6.7% within 30 days, and 9.8% within 60 days of an index imaging test.
On the other hand, improving information availability can reduce waste. A 2015 study found health information exchange use drove an estimated annual savings of $32,460 in avoided repeat imaging, or $2.57 per patient. The study noted that advanced imaging (CT and MRI) accounted for about half of the estimated savings, despite representing a smaller share of avoided procedures.
For orthopedic leaders, the takeaway is practical: when imaging exchange fails, the clinic pays in staff time, delays, and sometimes repeat studies. When exchange is reliable, those costs decline.
What Alternatives to CDs Work Best for Orthopedic Imaging?
There is no single best option for every organization, but most alternatives fall into a few buckets.
Portal-first workflows can work well for patient access, but they can create friction when multiple outside providers need the same study quickly, or when portal sharing is inconsistent across referral partners.
Enterprise image exchange and cloud-based sharing can be strong for provider-to-provider exchange, especially when paired with consistent identity verification and delivery tracking.
HIE-enabled exchange can reduce repeat imaging and improve availability when participation is strong across the community, but coverage and imaging functionality vary by region and network.
The best alternative is the one that reduces exceptions in your referral network and gives your team visibility into delivery and turnaround.
How Do You Transition Away From Sharing MRI Results on CD Without Disrupting Care?
In orthopedics, imaging delivery is operationally critical. It determines whether the first consult proceeds, whether surgical planning stays on schedule, and whether patients feel confident about the next step. When imaging handoffs fail, orthopedic teams absorb the fallout in real time.
It succeeds when teams treat it as workflow standardization.
Start with one lane that creates the most friction, such as outside MRIs needed for first consults or pre-op planning. Define what “done” means, including what counts as proof of delivery and how your team escalates urgent cases. Then pilot a digital workflow that removes manual steps and improves visibility.
This approach also supports timeline flexibility. If you need to move fast, you can quickly stabilize one high-impact lane, measure the change, and expand from there.
How ChartRequest Helps Orthopedic Centers Move Away From CDs
If your team is still fulfilling MRI results on CD requests, you’re not just delivering images. You’re running a manual production line: pulling the study, verifying details, burning, labeling, packaging, logging, shipping, and then fielding status calls and rework when anything is missing or doesn’t open the way the recipient expected.
ChartRequest helps you replace that manual cycle with a secure, trackable release workflow that reduces interruptions and makes delivery easier to prove. With ChartRequestSelect, orthopedic practices can electronically transfer imaging records, eliminating reliance on physical media while maintaining clear documentation and auditability.
Implementation does not have to be disruptive. The fastest path is usually to start with your highest-friction lane, such as outside imaging delivery to referral partners or requestor delivery that currently requires burning and mailing discs, then expand once the workflow is stable.
If you’d like to see what replacing CDs could look like for your practice, check your eligibility for a no-cost orthopedic partnership.
