Which Atlas to use in ANATOMY? Cartoon, or Cadaver?

[TOMFighter]

---

Members do not see this ad.

which is better?

 

[ZagDoc]

Both. I used Netter's to learn structures since the color really helps differentiate structures and he mis-scales things to help you understand relationships. I used Rohen's for studying for practicals.

 

[HarryRosenMD]

I completely agree with ZagDoc

 

[TheMagicCookie]

My vote goes for Netter's as well. Some people may argue Grant's...but go with Netter's 🙂

 

[opb]

Same here. I used Netter's to become familiar with "textbook" anatomy then used the cadavers to review before the practicals.

 

[ACSurgeon]

which is better?

Go to your med school's book store and spend time with both. Otherwise, if the library has a copy of one type, you may get the other. I went with the cadaver atlas, even though our anatomy course book referenced the Netter plates. Our gross lab had a dozen Netters, so that was available when needed.

 

[EBI831]

both. especially for pelvis, netter sucks major as the pelvis dimensions are crazy. i did rohen's for the picture atlas (didn't like rohen's too much for head and neck tho) and netter's flashcards (you save money that way b/c the flashcards are cheaper than buying the book). plus, the flashcards are portable and great for working out, spare moments, and i'll admit kinda fun (i'll lose cool points for saying that) . rohen's is great b/c you get to see it how it's probably gonna look anyway. but the best resource is the cadaver itself.

 

[notdeadyet]

Depends a lot on how your med school teaches Anatomy.

Some Anatomy prof's use images in lectures from one text or the other. Usually Grants (which is cheaper for copyrighted image usage) or Netters. If you are going to have a written exam with images from one of these, it might behoove you to use it.

But if your main testing in anatomy is going to be using actual cadavers, I'd go with Rohen's. Our school tested mostly with cadavers and I found that I didn't use Netter's at all.

 

[TOMFighter]

Okay, so I bought both: Netters, Rohans.

I have a feeling I'll use Rohans far more or even exclusively..

 

[DocPsychosis]

I never even touched Rohan's and I did just fine in practicals, fwiw.

 

[Slide]

It doesn't matter which atlas you use if you study Anatomy right. The atlas should be used as a reference tool in which you can understand the 3D relationships and landmarks of the body, and your cadaver should be your source of knowing what something really looks like. It's not a good habit to memorize things "as they appear' in Rohen because those too are somewhat picture perfect, and cadavers rarely are as they are in the atlases.

 

[TOMFighter]

It doesn't matter which atlas you use if you study Anatomy right. The atlas should be used as a reference tool in which you can understand the 3D relationships and landmarks of the body, and your cadaver should be your source of knowing what something really looks like. It's not a good habit to memorize things "as they appear' in Rohen because those too are somewhat picture perfect, and cadavers rarely are as they are in the atlases.

I agree with this one here after looking at both atlases....

It would be far easier to recognize a part on the ACTUAL cadaver by viewing the CADAVER reference book rather than a drawing/painting of it.

 

[njbmd]

Okay, so I bought both: Netters, Rohans.

I have a feeling I'll use Rohans far more or even exclusively..

Unless you are in school, your feelings right now don't count for much.

It doesn't matter which atlas you use if you study Anatomy right. The atlas should be used as a reference tool in which you can understand the 3D relationships and landmarks of the body, and your cadaver should be your source of knowing what something really looks like. It's not a good habit to memorize things "as they appear' in Rohen because those too are somewhat picture perfect, and cadavers rarely are as they are in the atlases.

This advice is correct.

I agree with this one here after looking at both atlases....

It would be far easier to recognize a part on the ACTUAL cadaver by viewing the CADAVER reference book rather than a drawing/painting of it.

If you haven't started medical school, you might want to "chill" on purchasing a huge number of books. You can generally figure out what works once you see how your school tests and what you need to master the material for those tests. If you don't have any school experience, you can't make much of a judgment as to what you need. I have seen too many folks with five atlases failing anatomy.

 

[SugPlum]

I used Netter in the lab and for regular studying (not the same copy), and Rohen to supplement reviewing in the lab for practicals.

 

[WayChanger]

If you're at all a fan of Netter, consider springing for the flashcards as well. Anatomy is a whole world of vocabulary, and I thought the flashcards were golden in terms of prepping for practical exams.

 

[yohimbine1]

I also liked the Netter flashcards. In hindsight I probably would have obtained the cadaver atlas (Rohan?) so I could have gotten away with skipping more.

 

[ZagDoc]

If you're at all a fan of Netter, consider springing for the flashcards as well. Anatomy is a whole world of vocabulary, and I thought the flashcards were golden in terms of prepping for practical exams.

Agreed, but its also important to note that the flashcards do not have everything on them. They are a great supplement to an atlas, but should not be used alone.

That being said, they sure saved my butt on arm and leg.

 

[HEADintheCLOUDS]

I used netter, and rohan to see what body look like. I never go to lab and never see body till gross exam. Me get always 95-100%.

 

[cpants]

I actually bought Netter and Rohen, and I barely opened Rohen. You only have so much time to study, and it's better spent looking at real cadavers than going through Rohen. Rohen does have some great musculoskeletal schematics though. Also, I can vouch for the netter's flashcards. Phenomenal.

 

[Haemulon]

I used Grant's, also Moore. I have Rohen, but was surprised to find that I did not use it much. While Rohen is a great photographic atlas, it didn't take long for me to realise that my own cadaver would never look as perfectly dissected as those images. So it was just more effective for me to go into the lab and study the cadavers in person, with a cartoon atlas like Grant's or Netters for reference.

 

[ChickFingaz]

I used Netter before I went into lab. And used Rohen like right before the practicals. I actually studied from videos a lot.

But as others have said, you won't know until you get there, so I wouldn't worry too much.

 

[Depakote]

I've used both.

Netter's is a good guide to have with you in lab and it is good for studying the general structures outside. The diagrams are good and show things from multiple angles. It's not the best for practical study (only actual lab time helps there).

Overall, Rohen is nice, but it's so cleaned up that even then it really doesn't look like the stuff you'll see in lab unless you've got a faculty prosected body. Really, just study the cadaver if you want to study for the practical, there's no substitute.


BTW. Rohen, does have great pictures, but the diagrams are lacking. You'll only get one look at things where Netter's will give you several.

 

[45408]

Same here. I used Netter's to become familiar with "textbook" anatomy then used the cadavers to review before the practicals.

Same. Netter's schematic style of artwork made the structural relationships much more clear, but if you want to get it on a practical, it's worth your time to know what it looks like in person as well.

The photo atlases were largely useless for me, but Ackland's DVDs were pretty helpful.

 

[AMedStud]

I can vouch for the netter's flashcards. Phenomenal.

Does anyone know if there is a significant difference between the first and second editions of the Netter's flashcards? I was given the first edition but am not sure if it is worth upgrading.

 

[PistolPete]

What about Rohen's flashcards? Would you guys say those are as good as Netters?

 

[cpants]

Does anyone know if there is a significant difference between the first and second editions of the Netter's flashcards? I was given the first edition but am not sure if it is worth upgrading.

Probably the first edition is fine. Anatomy doesn't change much from year to year. Double check spinal nerves card. I think they pretty recently decided that CN XI is completely a spinal nerve that enters the skull through the foramen magnum and leaves through the jugular foramen. Older texts describe it as having a spinal and cranial contribution.

 

[Depakote]

Probably the first edition is fine. Anatomy doesn't change much from year to year. Double check spinal nerves card. I think they pretty recently decided that CN XI is completely a spinal nerve that enters the skull through the foramen magnum and leaves through the jugular foramen. Older texts describe it as having a spinal and cranial contribution.

Really, I know CN XI is a cranial nerve but Spinal Accessory does get contributions from C3-4 before innervating trapezius. Is this different or am I just confusing myself?

 

[cfdavid]

Okay, so I bought both: Netters, Rohans.

I have a feeling I'll use Rohans far more or even exclusively..

Rohans will help you study for practical exams without having to spend as much time in the lab. However, actually making it to the lab for a few hours on Saturdays can really help. It all depends on how productive you are during normal lab hours. If productive, Rohans will really come in handy.

I mostly used Netters, but did brush up on the Rohans in prep for those practicals.

 

[cpants]

Really, I know CN XI is a cranial nerve but Spinal Accessory does get contributions from C3-4 before innervating trapezius. Is this different or am I just confusing myself?

As I understand it, it originates from cervical roots, enters through the foramen magnum, exits through the jugular foramen, and then innervates the trap and SCM. The classical theory was that part of the nerve originated from a nucleus in the medulla and thus it was classified as a cranial nerve. Now it is more or less understood to be a spinal nerve, but is still classified as a cranial nerve for tradition's sake.

 

[Depakote]

As I understand it, it originates from cervical roots, enters through the foramen magnum, exits through the jugular foramen, and then innervates the trap and SCM. The classical theory was that part of the nerve originated from a nucleus in the medulla and thus it was classified as a cranial nerve. Now it is more or less understood to be a spinal nerve, but is still classified as a cranial nerve for tradition's sake.

Wow, that is new info to me. Interesting stuff.