- Email: [email protected]
Musculoskeletal imaging: the requisites, 2nd ed
The Bookshelf/Editor’s Page
The second edition of Musculoskeletal Imaging: The Requisites is an excellent addition to the popular Requisites series. Updating the popular first edition by Sartoris, this new edition solidifies its position as a comprehensive review of musculoskeletal imaging for radiology residents and for practicing radiologists. The book is organized into six sections: tumors, arthritis, trauma, metabolic, congenital and developmental skeletal conditions, and miscellaneous, including hematogeneous disorders and infection. Three appendices cover arthrography, sonography of the infant hip, and fractures with eponyms. This organization is extremely useful because it closely parallels the ACR Learning File CD-ROM, also by B.J. Manaster. The first chapter, “Tumors,” includes an excellent algorithm for musculoskeletal tumor work-up. The work-up of osseous and soft tissue lesions is one of the more difficult concepts to grasp for radiologists, and the algorithm sug-
gested is a logical, easy to follow approach. The chapter continues with an orderly demonstration of the pathologies. The remaining chapters are similarly well organized. The text is concise, but comprehensive, and extremely readable. The images are of uniform high quality. The authors have done a very nice job in keeping text descriptions and illustrations in close proximity to one another, which greatly reduces the amount of page flipping. The recent explosion of computed tomography and magnetic resonance in musculoskeletal imaging is reflected in the large number of cross-sectional images found throughout the book. Particularly helpful are the “Key Concepts” boxes that are liberally sprinkled throughout the text, which succinctly summarize important entities. The second edition of Musculoskeletal Imaging: The Requisites provides an excellent review of a very complex aspect of radiology. Radiology residents preparing for teaching conferences and for examinations will be well-served by this book as will radiologists in their everyday clinical practice. Contents: 夹夹夹夹 Readability: 夹夹夹夹 Accuracy: 夹夹夹夹 Overall Evaluation: 夹夹夹夹
Correspondence to Mauricio Castillo, MD, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Department of Radiology, 3326 Old Infirmary, CB #7510, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7510.
John G. Alley Jr, MD, University of North Carolina School of Medicine Chapel Hill, NC
MUSCULOSKELETAL IMAGING: THE REQUISITES, 2ND ED B.J. Manaster, D.G. Disler, D.A. May. Mosby, St Louis, MO, 2002: 554 pp, hardcover, $0.00.
Research Corner: Editor’s Note1 Stanley Baum, MD
In March 2000, Academic Radiology began to print the abstracts of diagnostic radiology research and training grants awarded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to principal investigators (PIs) with primary appointments in medical school departments of radiology. The purpose of publishing these abstracts is to give the readers of Academic Radiology the opportunity to review the type of research that merits NIH funding. The Research Corner has become very popular, and our readers
Acad Radiol 2003; 10:1469 1
Editor-in-Chief Academic Radiology 3600 Market Street Suite 370 Philadelphia, PA 19104 Phone: 215-662-2028 Fax: 215-662-6853. [email protected]
©
AUR, 2003 doi:10.1016/S1076-6332(03)00641-X
have encouraged me to continue this section. Our problem, however, is the product of the success of the radiology investigators over these past 3 years. During this period, the number of grants awarded to radiology PIs has swelled from 350 per year to 573 per year. Because the journal is constrained to publish a fixed number of pages per year, printing this increased number of abstracts each month limits the number of research manuscripts that can be published in each issue. Therefore, I have requested that Elsevier make these abstracts available to our readers only in the on-line version of Academic Radiology at www.academicradiology.org and omit them from the printed version of the journal. This pilot project will begin in January 2004 and will be reviewed at the next AUR annual meeting. As always, I welcome your comments.
1469
The second edition of Musculoskeletal Imaging: The Requisites is an excellent addition to the popular Requisites series. Updating the popular first edition by Sartoris, this new edition solidifies its position as a comprehensive review of musculoskeletal imaging for radiology residents and for practicing radiologists. The book is organized into six sections: tumors, arthritis, trauma, metabolic, congenital and developmental skeletal conditions, and miscellaneous, including hematogeneous disorders and infection. Three appendices cover arthrography, sonography of the infant hip, and fractures with eponyms. This organization is extremely useful because it closely parallels the ACR Learning File CD-ROM, also by B.J. Manaster. The first chapter, “Tumors,” includes an excellent algorithm for musculoskeletal tumor work-up. The work-up of osseous and soft tissue lesions is one of the more difficult concepts to grasp for radiologists, and the algorithm sug-
gested is a logical, easy to follow approach. The chapter continues with an orderly demonstration of the pathologies. The remaining chapters are similarly well organized. The text is concise, but comprehensive, and extremely readable. The images are of uniform high quality. The authors have done a very nice job in keeping text descriptions and illustrations in close proximity to one another, which greatly reduces the amount of page flipping. The recent explosion of computed tomography and magnetic resonance in musculoskeletal imaging is reflected in the large number of cross-sectional images found throughout the book. Particularly helpful are the “Key Concepts” boxes that are liberally sprinkled throughout the text, which succinctly summarize important entities. The second edition of Musculoskeletal Imaging: The Requisites provides an excellent review of a very complex aspect of radiology. Radiology residents preparing for teaching conferences and for examinations will be well-served by this book as will radiologists in their everyday clinical practice. Contents: 夹夹夹夹 Readability: 夹夹夹夹 Accuracy: 夹夹夹夹 Overall Evaluation: 夹夹夹夹
Correspondence to Mauricio Castillo, MD, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Department of Radiology, 3326 Old Infirmary, CB #7510, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7510.
John G. Alley Jr, MD, University of North Carolina School of Medicine Chapel Hill, NC
MUSCULOSKELETAL IMAGING: THE REQUISITES, 2ND ED B.J. Manaster, D.G. Disler, D.A. May. Mosby, St Louis, MO, 2002: 554 pp, hardcover, $0.00.
Research Corner: Editor’s Note1 Stanley Baum, MD
In March 2000, Academic Radiology began to print the abstracts of diagnostic radiology research and training grants awarded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to principal investigators (PIs) with primary appointments in medical school departments of radiology. The purpose of publishing these abstracts is to give the readers of Academic Radiology the opportunity to review the type of research that merits NIH funding. The Research Corner has become very popular, and our readers
Acad Radiol 2003; 10:1469 1
Editor-in-Chief Academic Radiology 3600 Market Street Suite 370 Philadelphia, PA 19104 Phone: 215-662-2028 Fax: 215-662-6853. [email protected]
©
AUR, 2003 doi:10.1016/S1076-6332(03)00641-X
have encouraged me to continue this section. Our problem, however, is the product of the success of the radiology investigators over these past 3 years. During this period, the number of grants awarded to radiology PIs has swelled from 350 per year to 573 per year. Because the journal is constrained to publish a fixed number of pages per year, printing this increased number of abstracts each month limits the number of research manuscripts that can be published in each issue. Therefore, I have requested that Elsevier make these abstracts available to our readers only in the on-line version of Academic Radiology at www.academicradiology.org and omit them from the printed version of the journal. This pilot project will begin in January 2004 and will be reviewed at the next AUR annual meeting. As always, I welcome your comments.
1469