Radiology atlas?

[medgator]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Hey Guys.... I am looking at a couple of radiology atlases and wondering which would be the best for my purposes. I was debating between the Abrahams/Weir imaging of anatomy vs. Fleckenstein's Anatomy in Diagnostic Imaging. I would mainly be using it for CT/MRI (a lot of the stuff we see in rad onc) of the body, head and neck. Any suggestions? U/S would also be nice (used in GU planning for brachy)

 

[medgator]

Has anybody used the abrahams-weir atlas at all?? I'd really appreciate anybody's input at all.

 

[medgator]

Hey Guys.... I am looking at a couple of radiology atlases and wondering which would be the best for my purposes. I was debating between the Abrahams/Weir imaging of anatomy vs. Fleckenstein's Anatomy in Diagnostic Imaging. I would mainly be using it for CT/MRI (a lot of the stuff we see in rad onc) of the body, head and neck. Any suggestions? U/S would also be nice (used in GU planning for brachy)

has anybody used fleckenstein's imaging atlas at all??? Could you comment on the adequacy of it for body CT and head MRI anatomy??

 

[LordSoulsby]

I've used both Fleckenstein and Weir. Fleckenstein is very good in that it has the radiologic image side-by-side with the same image with outlines around the structures which makes them easier to see. The problem is that the CT (moreso) and MR images are not as good quality as today's studies (considering the book was last published in 2001, this makes sense). Weir is very good as well and has better pictures. So although I liked the Fleckenstein format better, I'd have to choose Weir in terms of image quality (which may ultimately mean better application towards studying).