Anyone end up in Neurology who struggled with anatomy? I've really enjoyed my rotation and it's an interesting field, but I'm a Phys = A, Anatomy = C type of guy.
Anyone end up in Neurology who struggled with anatomy? I've really enjoyed my rotation and it's an interesting field, but I'm a Phys = A, Anatomy = C type of guy.
Good to see you over here asking questions. I've decided on neurology myself, though I didn't ace the neuroanatomy by any means I figure that by focusing in neurology, I'll re-learn and eventually know it quite well during training and re-studying, lectures, cases, etc...
There's a difference between the entire bulk of neuroanatomy and the neuroanatomy that's actually clinically relevant. Early on it's sufficient to have knowledge of the major pathways and structures, the rest you learn as you go as you progress through your training. However I doubt even most attending neurologists have the same knowledge as say, a neuroanatomy professor. Much of it is just not relevant to clinical neurology.
There's a difference between the entire bulk of neuroanatomy and the neuroanatomy that's actually clinically relevant. Early on it's sufficient to have knowledge of the major pathways and structures, the rest you learn as you go as you progress through your training. However I doubt even most attending neurologists have the same knowledge as say, a neuroanatomy professor. Much of it is just not relevant to clinical neurology.
I totally agree. The job of a neuroanatomist is to know...neuroanatomy. But medicine is an applied science -- if it isn't relevant to clinical practice, then you don't really need to be too concerned about it. There are certainly attendings out there that will shock you with their freakish knowledge of neuroanatomy, but that isn't the norm. I doubt my stroke attendings remember the anatomy of the sacral plexus, just as my neuromuscular attendings don't remember the location of the lesion in a Millard-Gubler.