Rohen's vs. Netter's atlas or BOTH?

[RU2003]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I wanted to know which most students think is a better atlas for anatomy, rohens or netter's or is it essential to get both.

I have rohen's now and it looks great, real pictures and very detailed. I have the netter's cd and flascards. What do you think?

I also found this one called McMinn's Atlas and it looks amazing. The pictures are the most real, vivid and detailed i have ever seen.

Any advice would be great thanks

 

[lattimer13]

i bought both. our class was based off netter's which was why it was "required." i like rohen too because you could actually see what something should look like when dissecting. i found they complemented one another in that some of the structures were covered better in one book vs the other, and vice versa. netter's was good because i thought it really did a good job pointing something out when you only wanted to look at that specific structure.

if i were to only buy one book, it would be netter's. you can find decent deals at amazon and ebay for used copies if you want to buy either.

also, your school might have a book drive of students from previous years trying to sell their textbooks at a very discounted price.

 

[Trisomy13]

I wanted to know which most students think is a better atlas for anatomy, rohens or netter's or is it essential to get both.

I have rohen's now and it looks great, real pictures and very detailed. I have the netter's cd and flascards. What do you think?

I also found this one called McMinn's Atlas and it looks amazing. The pictures are the most real, vivid and detailed i have ever seen.

Any advice would be great thanks

Netter shows you what it is *supposed* to look like and where it is *supposed* to be.

Rohen shows you the ugly truth.


If I had to go with one only, I'd say Rohen. When you are dissecting or taking a practical, it's better to know what you are actually looking for (i.e. some random greyish stringy thing that is allegedly a recurrent branch of a nerve).

 

[greets fr. nyc]

i used at least two image atlases during anatomy.

netters and rohen got me thru it.
as you might expect, one being illustration vs. the other real pics, they compliment each other. netter's i found to be key in seeing the SPATIAL relationships clearly between structures so i'd say at least this book is a must in my personal library. for a $100,000 dollar education, spend the few extra bucks ($70 +$70) to get two books, or just borrow one/both from your library if short on mulla.

netters + mcminn's is also a good combo. (the brit atlas has a real nice layout and organization, great pics, tho FEWER images and views than rohen. one thing that's really great in mcminn's is the many helpful direct correlations btwn underlying anatomy in cadavers and the surface anatomy on live people. cd rom is cumbersome to use tho one may find it semi-helpful. overall a good book)

again, i'd test drive them before buying!

 

[footcramp]

buy em both and get em used or steal them that way you save money and kick ass!

 

[Jalby]

Get them both. If you join AMSA, they generally give you a free Netter.

 

[JMD]

Although I got Netter's from AMSA, I barely used it at all. For me, the combination of Moore's Clinically Oriented Anatomy and Rohen worked well. Moore has a lot of good pics and all of the clinical info. we needed for tests, and then I would look at Rohen to try to get a feel for the "real thing"... but the real thing in a book never seems to match up well enough with the actual cadaver 😉 .

 

[azzarah]

I personally mostly used netters because I got a free copy by signing up for AMSA in the begining of the yr. I liked and used Clemente and Grants a lot too (borrowed from the library). Grants is very good if you are using Grant's dissector. Clemente is good for learning the blood supply to a specific region. I thought the old tests that the professors posted were key for learning anatomy though. 😉

 

[aerial]

I thought the old tests that the professors posted were key for learning anatomy though.

Well... that's only if you're fortunate enough to be provided with such material 😉

Neither Rohen nor Netter's is going to get you through anatomy. Putting in time and energy will! Reading Moore and Dalley (or lecture notes) and using Netter's to visualize the words is a good way to learn and *retain* information. Using Rohen is nice to solidify spatial concepts and for any last minute studying. It's also helpful when your dissections don't come out as nice as you would like them to (or when your cadaver has been destroyed due to prior surgery or disease). Oh, and that reminds me... don't forget your cadaver! You'll soon learn that the concepts of "relationship and orientation" your professors keep harping on are key to understanding anatomy-- and the best way to learn what is lateral to this and posterior to that is by studying cadavers (and lots of them!). Books will only get you so far... using your five senses (and unfortunately that includes smelling) will definitely help you out the most.

 

[azzarah]

... Oh, and that reminds me... don't forget your cadaver! You'll soon learn that the concepts of "relationship and orientation" your professors keep harping on are key to understanding anatomy-- and the best way to learn what is lateral to this and posterior to that is by studying cadavers (and lots of them!). Books will only get you so far... using your five senses (and unfortunately that includes smelling) will definitely help you out the most.

Hehe, I guess that depends on how you learn...honestly, I didn't learn much from anatomy lab.
Especially if I didn't know what I was looking for before going to lab. Make sure you are prepared before you go to lab, otherwise you won't get much out of it. 😉
Here is what I did for anatomy and it worked pretty well for me.
I read all the class notes for a specific section on day 1 as fast as I could...not looking for detail, but looking for main ideas and made an outline of what each page of the notes discussed and highlighted the structures that were mentioned on netters. For instance,
page 1-3 blood supply to head and neck
page 4 table on cranial nerves
and I would also make references in my notes for which plate to go back to when reviewing the material.
and then I went back and looked at old tests and study questions and my notes and memorized everything that was highlighted on my atlas. Then I made a sheet for each important topic and wrote down everything that I thought was important and drew lots of pictures. then I just kept looking over my notes until exam time. 😀 Everyone is different though. One of my lab partners learned everything from lab and did fine.

 

[johnstoner]

get both...but if you had to pick only one...get Netter. That has been my bible for anatomy from day one. Basically memorized the whole book. Also get the CD...its awesome for quizzing and stuff...but when you do your practical...you might need Rohen if you don't like to look at bodies late at night.

 

[Slinkie]

I used both, though I mostly relied on Rohen, since Netter never looked entirely real to me. Still, most people I knew used Netter more than anything else, and it's excellent for when you want to get a sort of a schematic overview of a region and see how everything interconnects and what nerve goes where. Rohen is good for when you are digging around a cadaver, to give you an idea of what exactly is the size/shape of the thing you are looking for should be. You can also test your ability to name structures with it by covering up the key and using it as a sort of quiz.
Also, an added advantage of Rohen is that absolutely grosses out all your non-med school friends. It has great prospects as a coffee table book from hell.

 

[::Seabass::]

Netter shows you what it is *supposed* to look like and where it is *supposed* to be.

Rohen shows you the ugly truth.


If I had to go with one only, I'd say Rohen. When you are dissecting or taking a practical, it's better to know what you are actually looking for (i.e. some random greyish stringy thing that is allegedly a recurrent branch of a nerve).

except Rohen is somewhat deficient in some areas. you'll be required to know some things not in Rohen in which case Netter comes in handy.

I always used Netter to memorize how it was supposed to be put together and then Rohen to see the inconsistencies btwn cadavers.

 

[Johnny69]

I wanted to know which most students think is a better atlas for anatomy, rohens or netter's or is it essential to get both.

I have rohen's now and it looks great, real pictures and very detailed. I have the netter's cd and flascards. What do you think?

I also found this one called McMinn's Atlas and it looks amazing. The pictures are the most real, vivid and detailed i have ever seen.

Any advice would be great thanks

I would definately have 2 anatomy books:

1 that is very thorough, and uses drawn images, such as Grants, or Clinically Oriented Anatomy (uses many drawings from grants). This will give you a good overview of what a particular system of structure should ideally look like.

And another text that has REAL images of specimens in it, such as McMinn's (which i also have and is great). Use the book with real preperations second to fine tune your skills. The body is not ideal, and as you know varies considerably from person to person. There is no reason to limit yourself to fluffy colourful drawings that are idealistic when we know that is simply not reality.

 

[idq1i]

Here's my take on it:

Rohen - not necessary. Just spend an extra hour or two at the lab before the practical reviewing the pertinent anatomy.

Netter - talented artist/physician, poor selection of plates in the current edition. Very few of them have nerves, ateries, muscles and veins on the same page. It was annoying to have to constantly flip pages to appreciate relative locations.

Take a look at Grant's atlas - I think it is more useful.

 

[brianjc]

Netter in my opinion is a must. That supplemented with your class notes and/or your required text (moore and dalley) is more than sufficient. Don't buy Rohen unless you have the extra money. Rohen is just so great because you actually see what really good disections look like on a fresh body. Odds are pretty damn good that your disections in class won't look like Rohen anyway. 🙂

 

[hans19]

Definitely get Rohen's. It'll save you a late night cram-session trip to the anatomy lab before the practicals.

Most of my class loved netter's. I have owned netters, grants... But personally I like Clemente the best 😍 . It has beautifully illustrated, CRISP pictures, and excellent portrayal of blood supply as mentioned previously.

Good luck.

 

[DendriticCell]

for me, i use both.. netter is very ideal.. but too ideal for the pratical test...
i would recommend using rohen.. i use rohen to study for the practical test when the lab is closed... also netter's flash card is very good too.. but depends whether you use "flash cards" to study or not.. hope this would help 🙂

 

[Harrie]

BOTH! I used Netter's all of the time. This is a necessity, everybody has it. Rohen is a nice added bonus. I used it mostly for the last night before the test when I couldn't stand to be in the lab anymore.

 

[MedguyNYC]

BOTH, Harrie said it well.

 

[Deuce 007 MD]

Here's my take on it:

Rohen - not necessary. Just spend an extra hour or two at the lab before the practical reviewing the pertinent anatomy.

Netter - talented artist/physician, poor selection of plates in the current edition. Very few of them have nerves, ateries, muscles and veins on the same page. It was annoying to have to constantly flip pages to appreciate relative locations.

Take a look at Grant's atlas - I think it is more useful.

👍 👍 I totally agree with this post Netter is to cluttered and I to had to constanly flip pages to appreciate relative location. Clemente teaches at my school so each anatomy disection table had a free copy, but I found that it was cluttered like netters. Grants IMHO is the best, they have pictures of just nerve paths, just cranial nerve paths, just blood vessel paths, muscles in schematic layers, again so you can appreciate relative locations, and yes they have cluttered views just like netter and clemente does too. On top of that most of the pictures in the Moore text book come from grants. I got the Rohen book to so I could spend less time in lab and look at rohen to prepare for the lab practical.

 

[bokermmk]

I have the netter CD. is there any reason to actually get the netter text??

 

[raspberry swirl]

I wanted to know which most students think is a better atlas for anatomy, rohens or netter's or is it essential to get both.

i agree with BOTH. definitely both. i started out with just the netter atlas, but it wasn't helping me for practicals. once i got rohen, it got so much easier. but at the same time, netter's drawings can be really helpful when sometimes rohen isn't as clear. and rohen is really bad for one part of the body, i can't remember which. maybe abdomen. and likewise, there are parts where netter isn't that great. regardless of which ones you get, i tell everyone to definitely get two

 

[ItsNotATumor]

I used both and honestly my bible turned out to be Netter's...
It really depends on how your anatomy course is organized. Rohen's was cool for the disections and presentations, but Netter was basically where all our exam questions came from (i.e. anatomical orientations and relationships). If I had to pick only one because of extreme poverty and limited resell value, get Netter. If you can pony up a little more, Big Moore will really help nail the clinical correlates and clear up some confusion that comes from using Netter alone.

 

[Blade28]

I loved Netter's...still use it.

 

[isoquin]

The best review I've seen on this topic is this:
Epic Anatomy Atlas Battle: Netter vs Rohen! (and others)

It's how I found the site, and why it's in my signature. What I would recommend personally is buying Netter and checking out Rohen from the library. If you can own both though, go for it. That site's links will send you to the sites that usually have the cheaper prices.