James CA, Braswell LE, Glaser M, Greenberg SB, Seibert JJ, eds. Pediatric Radiology Casebase. 2nd ed. Thieme; 2015; 416 pp; 682 ill; $99.99
As is increasingly common, texts in the subspecialty areas of radiology often present their material in a case-based manner. This is the situation with this softcover, 402-page book edited by Drs. James, Braswell, Glasier, Greenberg, and Seibert, all of whom are from the Arkansas Children’s Hospital in Little Rock. One hundred sixty seven cases (unusual that they didn’t end on a round number) comprise the case material, which is divided up into sections: Brain, Spine, Head and Neck, GI, GU, Bone, Chest, Cardiac Interventional, and Syndromes.
The material is presented in a uniform way from case to case, viz, Clinical Presentation, Radiographic Studies (first page), and then on the overleaf page (so you can quiz yourself) the Diagnosis, Pearls/Pitfalls, and References (short list). While it is unlikely that a neuroradiologist would buy the book for his/her collection, it is a publication that would fit in well in a departmental or resident library.
Of the 167 cases, 62 are neuroradiology specialty-related, and anyone in or training for our subspecialty would benefit in going through at least the neuroradiology cases. The case material is straightforward, and the image quality in general is good, but one wonders how some of the MRIs and CTs passed inspection by the managing editors. For instance, a few examples are improperly windowed cases of preventricular leukomalacia (the T2WI has nearly disappeared from the page). A similarly disappointing image of schizencephaly shows an unreadable sagittal TIWI of a hypothalamic astrocytoma. There are others of questionable quality.
Twenty seven head-and-neck cases, 29 brain cases, and 16 spine cases test the reader’s ability to recognize the imaging pattern shown. Do not expect to see much in terms of advanced MR imaging techniques, although a few single-voxel MRS images are included. As with most books of this type the findings are obvious—that is, they are classic examples. But we all know that such is not the difficulty in interpreting images. It is the subtle or barely perceptible findings, not the clear-cut findings, that can trip us up and which require a diagnosis or at least a differential diagnosis. Someday, someone is going to publish a book on easily missed diagnosis. That would be a contribution of note.
The value to our specialty would be to thumb though the pictures and case material in preparation for the pediatric neuroradiology portion of the MOC examination. It is of note that included with the purchases is a code allowing one to access 25 videos of dynamic imaging, 7 of which are neuro-related.
