Thieme anatomy and the others

[Dogtor_Woof]

Hi,

I'm a 3rd year medical student, with a strong passion for anatomy , thus I'm really interested in discovering new books. I already own the Netter, like everyone, and the Sobotta. Sobotta is good but it lacks some crucial points (sections of the neck, innervation, hypophysis....) . Netter is great but it doesn't always show a precise anatomy (cranial bones for instance, or the ossicles. ) and lacks some view like the posterior mediastinum.
I also own a french anatomy book series, Kamina, which is for me the most complete anatomy book ever written, but it only has schematic drawings that aren't representative of real anatomy.

I heard very good things about the Thieme atlas (Gilroy) 3d edition. It seems to have good drawings and interesting views. Do you think it could be a good addition to my collection? Do you have any other atlas to recommend?

Overall , what's your favorite anatomy book?

Thank you and I apologize for any mistake, my english might be a little rusty.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Animalcules]

Hi,

I'm a 3rd year medical student, with a strong passion for anatomy , thus I'm really interested in discovering new books. I already own the Netter, like everyone, and the Sobotta. Sobotta is good but it lacks some crucial points (sections of the neck, innervation, hypophysis....) . Netter is great but it doesn't always show a precise anatomy (cranial bones for instance, or the ossicles. ) and lacks some view like the posterior mediastinum.
I also own a french anatomy book series, Kamina, which is for me the most complete anatomy book ever written, but it only has schematic drawings that aren't representative of real anatomy.

I heard very good things about the Thieme atlas (Gilroy) 3d edition. It seems to have good drawings and interesting views. Do you think it could be a good addition to my collection? Do you have any other atlas to recommend?

Overall , what's your favorite anatomy book?

Thank you and I apologize for any mistake, my english might be a little rusty.

When I started training, the three Thieme books were just coming out. Pretty much replaced Sobotta. I think they are the best, by a landslide.
Thieme > Sobotta > Netter for me.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app

 

[Dogtor_Woof]

When I started training, the three Thieme books were just coming out. Pretty much replaced Sobotta. I think they are the best, by a landslide.
Thieme > Sobotta > Netter for me.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app

Thanks for your advice !

It sure looks very very good

 

[Pacna]

Why use a book?

 

[Dogtor_Woof]

I tried to use 3D softwares but overall I prefer my books, I don't really know why but I always learned that way

 

[Super66]

The fact that Netter is still the standard over the Thieme / Gilroy atlas is just more evidence of how medicine and medical schools get stuck in their ways and old standards remain gold, even when there are better options out there. As someone who has had to look at both, Netter is complete garbage compared to Thieme, both in organization and in aesthetic/quality of anatomic representation.

 

[cutari]

Am I the only one that likes Snell's? I like how it's straight to the point... although diagrams aren't the best I admit

 

[Dogtor_Woof]

The fact that Netter is still the standard over the Thieme / Gilroy atlas is just more evidence of how medicine and medical schools get stuck in their ways and old standards remain gold, even when there are better options out there. As someone who has had to look at both, Netter is complete garbage compared to Thieme, both in organization and in aesthetic/quality of anatomic representation.

wow, will most likely buy it then

Am I the only one that likes Snell's? I like how it's straight to the point... although diagrams aren't the best I admit

I didn't know this one!

 

[leggo_my_ecmo]

I own Netter's, Grant's, Moore's, and Thieme. Of those Moore is the only one that is a true text, not just an atlas, and I have found that aspect extremely valuable. It's been very useful for more nitpicky details that I have had to look up in the course of doing research. I'd definitely consider it the true anatomist's bible.

Also, I just have to say, although I love the layout and aesthetics of Thieme, it has a pretty high rate of inaccuracies, particularly when it comes to the illustrations. I've discussed this with some of the faculty at my institution and they share that overall sentiment.

 

[Dogtor_Woof]

I own Netter's, Grant's, Moore's, and Thieme. Of those Moore is the only one that is a true text, not just an atlas, and I have found that aspect extremely valuable. It's been very useful for more nitpicky details that I have had to look up in the course of doing research. I'd definitely consider it the true anatomist's bible.

Also, I just have to say, although I love the layout and aesthetics of Thieme, it has a pretty high rate of inaccuracies, particularly when it comes to the illustrations. I've discussed this with some of the faculty at my institution and they share that overall sentiment.

Well this is interesting. I have had a look at Gilroy, for a particular anatomic region, and it was insufficiently detailed. The Kamina (French anatomy book) also has text and it's great, but the drawings are quite bad. I've found almost everything in Netter though, except for some particular structures like the Iliopectineal arch (quite odd btw), I'm always amazed by this Atlas. And it's sometimes more detailed than other atlases : I've never found a better drawing for the autonomic nervous system than the one in Netter/
Gilroy looked interesting because it gives a lots of different views for a particular stucture, and that's a weakness of Netter, but inaccuracies aren't quite acceptable, not for a science this old.