Customer Reviews

Grant's Atlas of Anatomy

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I have read the customer reviews ofGrant's Atlas and Netter's Atlas of Anatomy and have noted that the reviewers of Netter's Atlas have often denigrated Grant's Atlas. This is an improper comparison. These two atlases, although they overlap, serve, and are intended to serve, different purposes. Netter's is a general atlas, more encyclopedic in scope than Grant's. Grant's atlas is aimed more at the beginning surgeon (there are much more detailed works on specific surgical anatomy) and the gross anatomy prosector, such as a first year medical student. In the anatomy laboratory, I think many students would find Grant more useful than Netter, particularly in its description of variants of normal. There were also. I believe, some unfair comparisons to Gray's Anatomy. Gray is not primarily an atlas (although the illustrations are usually excellent). It is a texbook, and of value because of its unsurpassed descriptions of anatomy. Most of my physician colleagues have all three. These three works do not compete with, but complement one another.

I used Grant's Atlas of Anatomy during my gross anatomy class in medical school because it was the one recommended by the staff. It was fairly good, but not great. The illustrative pages on the twelve cranial nerves are perhaps the best. A few years after finishing that class, I found that Frank Netter M.D. had finally come out with an atlas of human anatomy. If your budget is limited (and most medical students have limited finances), buy Frank Netter's Atlas of Human Anatomy because it is hands down the best atlas available. I wish it would have been around when I was struggling through first year gross anatomy class. Grant's Atlas may supplement it to some degree if you are looking for a second presentation for variety, but Netter's is without question unequaled. Beyond this, if you ever decide to specialize in a medical field involving surgery - neurosurgery, gynecology, general surgery, orthopedics etc. - you will have opportunity to continue using Netter's A! tlas after medical school, whereas Grant's Atlas isn't very good in this regard. In short: buy Netter. If you want another text to go with the first, Grant's Atlas isn't bad.

Comparisons are often made between Netter's Atlas and Grant's. Both are highly useful in the laboratory and for at home study. However, Grant's is clearly superior in the completeness of its treatment of what is really useful knowledge for the professional student. This is quite evident in the treatment of the head and neck where views that make learning of these two regions well are present in Grant's but absent in Netter's. For example, the posterior pharyngeal region in Netter is very incompletely represented. Further, the inclusion of various radiological modalities, comprehensive treatment of all regions, presentation of anomalies and structe from several different views, and descriptions accompanying the figures in Grant's Atlas are superior virtually absent in Netter's Atlas. Although Netter's illustrations are as accurate as are Grant's, and are all works of art, they are often overlabeled and, above all, do not represent well what the student is going to see in cadaver dissection as does Grants. I think that another competitor of Grant's Atlas, the Rohen and Yokochi atlas, is also a good atlas, provided you don't suffer from astigmatism and have to deal with the white labels used in this atlas to identify structures. Like Grants, however, this atlas shows the cadaver as it really is in the laboratory.

I used Grant's Atlas when I was in medical school. What's good about Grant's ? Life-like drawings and the clinical slant. However, I was rather irritated by some of the errors in labelling, which I hope the editors have corrected in the latest edition.

Grant's 10th atlas is improved in illustration than 9th. But its illustration is still unclear. Anyway, this 9th edition is good, but the best anaromy atlas is the Sobotta's.

I am a dental student taking gross anatomy, and like some of the folks who posted reviews below, my anatomy professor listed Grant's as the text to be used for the course. Put simply, Netters is a vastly better atlas, particularly for someone who has never taken gross anatomy before.

My issues with Grant's are many, ranging from the drawings to the way the index is organized. From start to finish, the book has some serious shortcomings which create substantial inconveniences for a new anatomy student.

Many of the drawings in Grant's atlas are far more lifelike than they are explanatory. It is almost as if the illustrator's intent was to show what one would see when dissecting, rather than explain what is what and where it is. This is particularly evident when dealing with the head/neck region (which, unfortunately, is a complicated area we focus on heavily) and the routes of the cranial nerves. The small footnotes at the bottom of the pages are almost useless, as it is difficult to determine what specifically they are referring to. There are very few boldfaced references (such as those you'd see in a cell biology textbook) that allow you to quickly locate a description of the item you're trying to understand in the picture, hence, you find yourself having to read the entire thing. Netters has almost no text, yet the drawings are done in a way that clearly explain what's going on, thus no need for text.

Another serious issue with the Grant's is the index. The major entries are not in boldface text. This is such a small detail (it wouldn't have cost them a cent more to make) that makes locating things much quicker. For example, there are hundreds of items under the entry "Nerves", yet "Nerves" is not in bold-faced text. That is inexcusable, considering the fact that most of the structures we study are muscles, nerves, arteries, fascias, processes, fossas, i.e. things that must be found under major entries. Believe it or not, it makes finding a topic in the index a real hassle. There's nothing to distinguish major entries from the items found beneath them, except for the indentation.

Although some of the problems with Grant's are small, they cause problems when you have to repeatedly deal with them. Anatomy is tough enough as is without having inconveniences from your atlas. On occasion, you'll find a picture in Grant's that is more descriptive than Netter's, but rarely. In general, Grant's is a lowsy book, which should be used only as a supplement to Netters in cases where you want a more lifelike picture.

I own Grant, Netter and others. Over the years I have used Netter more than any others. Take Carpal Tunnel Syndrome, for example, Netter will show you why there can be atrophy at the thenar as it shows the details of the nerves in and out of the carpal tunnel. The book version is excellent. I just wish that Netter has a better CDrom version.

Forget those who say that Netter's is better. Grant's shows you what you really see in the lab, and in a person. The drawings in Netter's are highly interpretative and at least in older editions, there are many errors in labelling. If you take the time to read through and look at Grant's closely, you will be amply rewarded.

This book was shown to me by my Dr. and nothing has really changed since it was written. Great photos and clear understandable language.

I am a medical student in Ohio- I bought this book because it was recommended by the school- I kept hearing the other student's talk about how great Netter's atlas was so I bought it and haven't been sorry since-