Grant's Atlas of Anatomy (Grant, John Charles Boileau//Grant's Atlas of Anatomy) [Paperback]

Anne M. R. Agur (Author), Ming J., M.D. Lee (Author), J. C. Boileau Grant (Author)

Editorial Reviews

Product Description

Univ. of Toronto, Canada. Superbly illustrated atlas featuring line drawings traced directly from photographs of cadaver sections. Includes new muscle tables, illustrations, diagnostic imaging sections at the end of each chapter, chapter subtitles, and 'pearls.' Previous edition: c1991. For students. Softcover. DNLM: Human Anatomy Atlases.

Product Details

• Paperback: 760 pages
• Publisher: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 10 edition (August 15, 1999)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0683302647
• ISBN-13: 978-0683302646
• Product Dimensions: 10.9 x 9.2 x 1.2 inches
• Shipping Weight: 4.2 pounds
• Average Customer Review: 3.9 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (15 customer reviews)
• Amazon Bestsellers Rank: #384,260 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

31 of 32 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars "Grant's Atlas of Anatomy", September 29, 2000

By	Lee R. Miller - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

This review is from: Grant's Atlas of Anatomy (Grant, John Charles Boileau//Grant's Atlas of Anatomy) (Paperback)

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.

15 of 18 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Good, but it's not Netter, July 19, 1998

By	David Graham (Shell, Ecuador) - See all my reviews (TOP 1000 REVIEWER)    (REAL NAME)

This review is from: Grant's Atlas of Anatomy (Hardcover)

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.

6 of 7 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Grants Atlas of Anatomy, June 26, 2002

By A Customer

This review is from: Grant's Atlas of Anatomy (Grant, John Charles Boileau//Grant's Atlas of Anatomy) (Paperback)

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.