Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Feedback on the usefulness of an illustrated guidebook in an anatomical dissection course

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Dissection provides direct experience in anatomy, which constitutes an essential discipline for medical students. For this purpose, we created a dissection guide for students in the 2nd-year of medical studies at the Grenoble University School of Medicine. The objective was to evaluate this tool of reverse pedagogy in terms of student satisfaction and educational interest.

Methods

Every 2nd-year student takes four sessions of limb dissection. To assist this dissection course, we developed a photographic guide launched in 2013. It includes an introduction presenting a methodology for dissection, followed by detailed protocols for each dissection area. Each step is illustrated with captioned photographs associated with a concise explanatory text. A questionnaire was then sent to 242 students to assess the impact of this tool and their overall satisfaction.

Results

Overall student satisfaction with this guidebook was rated 8.1 out of 10 with a 93.2% with significant improvement (p = 0.0137) and 78.7% of them declaring they had a better understanding of anatomy and mastery of the dissection techniques, respectively. In addition, students assessed the usefulness of the dissection guide at 3.6 out of 4 with the relevance of the content and presentation judged at 3.4 out of 4. Finally, the exam scores increased significantly with use of the guidebook (p < 0.0001).

Conclusions

Students deemed the organization of this anatomy tutorial as highly satisfactory, and using the guidebook as a reference in dissection sessions allowed students to prepare for the dissection and improve their knowledge of anatomy, as demonstrated by improved exam scores.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Alsaid B (2016) Slide shows vs graphic tablet live drawing for anatomy teaching. Morphol Bull Assoc Anat 100:210–215

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Captier G, Canovas F, Bonnel F (2005) The human body and the computer as pedagogic tools for anatomy: review of the literature. Morphol Bull Assoc Anat 89:142–153

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Davis CR, Bates AS, Ellis H, Roberts AM (2014) Human anatomy: let the students tell us how to teach. Anat Sci Educ 7:262–272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Dinsmore CE, Daugherty S, Zeitz HJ (1999) Teaching and learning gross anatomy: dissection, prosection, or “both of the above?”. Clin Anat 12:110–114

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Dyer N, Sorra JS, Smith SA, Cleary PD, Hays RD (2012) Psychometric properties of the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS®) Clinician and Group Adult Visit Survey. Med Care 50(Suppl):S28–S34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Fasel JH (1998) Teaching of gross anatomy to medical undergraduates: general practice as a guideline? A synopsis. J Anat 192(Pt 2):305–306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Holla SJ, Selvaraj K, Isaac B, Chandi G (1999) Significance of the role of self-study and group discussion. Clin Anat 12:277–280

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Jack L, Wilson (1993) Dissection manual. Igaku-Shoin Medical Publishers, New York

    Google Scholar 

  9. Johnson JH (2002) Importance of dissection in learning anatomy: personal dissection versus peer teaching. Clin Anat N Y N 15:38–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Jones NA, Olafson RP, Sutin J (1978) Evaluation of a gross anatomy program without dissection. J Med Educ 53:198–205

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kerby J, Shukur ZN, Shalhoub J (2011) The relationships between learning outcomes and methods of teaching anatomy as perceived by medical students. Clin Anat N Y N 24:489–497

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Korf H-W, Wicht H, Snipes RL, Timmermans J-P, Paulsen F, Rune G, Baumgart-Vogt E (2008) The dissection course—necessary and indispensable for teaching anatomy to medical students. Ann Anat Anat Anz 190:16–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Lamdin R, Weller J, Kerse N (2012) Orientation to dissection: Assisting students through the transition. Clin Anat N Y N 25:235–240

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Leung K-K, Lue B-H, Lu K-S, Huang T-S (2006) Students’ evaluation on a two-stage anatomy curriculum. Med Teach 28:e59–e63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Macchi V, Munari PF, Ninfo V, Parenti A, De Caro R (2003) A short course of dissection for 2nd-year medical students at the School of Medicine of Padova. Surg Radiol Anat SRA 25:132–138

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. McWhorter DL, Forester JP (2004) Effects of an alternate dissection schedule on gross anatomy laboratory practical performance. Clin Anat N Y N 17:144–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Nnodim JO (1990) Learning human anatomy: by dissection or from prosections? Med Educ 24:389–395

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Nwachukwu C, Lachman N, Pawlina W (2015) Evaluating dissection in the gross anatomy course: Correlation between quality of laboratory dissection and students outcomes. Anat Sci Educ 8:45–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. O’Carroll RE, Whiten S, Jackson D, Sinclair DW (2002) Assessing the emotional impact of cadaver dissection on medical students. Med Educ 36:550–554

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Patel KM, Moxham BJ (2008) The relationships between learning outcomes and methods of teaching anatomy as perceived by professional anatomists. Clin Anat N Y N 21:182–189

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Rouvière H (1976) Précis d’anatomie et de dissection. Elsevier/Masson, New York

    Google Scholar 

  22. Sperber GH (2006) Grant’s Dissector. J Anat 208:389

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Stanford W, Erkonen WE, Cassell MD, Moran BD, Easley G, Carris RL, Albanese MA (1994) Evaluation of a computer-based program for teaching cardiac anatomy. Invest Radiol 29:248–252

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Stillman PL, Ruggill JS, Sabers DL (1978) The use of live models in the teaching of gross anatomy. Med Educ 12:114–116

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Travill AA (1977) The anatomical basis of clinical practice: an anatomy learning programme. Med Educ 11:377–379

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Tweed MJ, Bagg W, Child S, Wilkinson T, Weller JM (2010) How the trainee intern year can ease the transition from undergraduate education to postgraduate practice. N Z Med J 123:81–91

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Utting M, Willan P (1995) What future for dissection in courses of human topographical anatomy in universities in the UK? Clin Anat 8:414–417

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Voiglio EJ, Frattini B, Mathieux F, Vaz G, Lifante J-C, Rongieras F, Neidhardt J-PH, Morin A (2002) L’enseignement de l’anatomie à Lyon: un exemple d’évaluation de programme. Pédagogie Médicale 3:27–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Winkelmann A (2007) Anatomical dissection as a teaching method in medical school: a review of the evidence. Med Educ 41:15–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Yeager VL (1996) Learning gross anatomy: dissection and prosection. Clin Anat N Y N 9:57–59

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Laboratoire d’Anatomie Des Alpes Françaises, Faculty of Medicine, Grenoble Alpes University, Place du commandant Nal, Domaine de La Merci, 38700, La Tronche, France

    A. Bellier, G. Cavalie, P. Masson, O. Palombi & P. Chaffanjon

  2. Department of Medical Evaluation, Grenoble Alpes University Hospital, Boulevard de la Chantourne, 38700, La Tronche, France

    A. Bellier

  3. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Grenoble Alpes University Hospital, Boulevard de la Chantourne, 38700, La Tronche, France

    G. Cavalie

  4. GIPSA-Lab, Dpt. Parole et Cognition, UMR 5216, Grenoble Campus, 11 rue des Mathématiques, BP46, 38402, Saint Martin d’Hères Cedex, France

    P. Chaffanjon

Authors
  1. A. Bellier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. G. Cavalie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. P. Masson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. O. Palombi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. P. Chaffanjon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

AB: protocol/project development, data analysis, and manuscript writing. GC: protocol/project development, data analysis, and manuscript writing. PM: protocol/project development. OP: protocol/project development. PC: protocol/project development, manuscript writing/editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Bellier.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bellier, A., Cavalie, G., Masson, P. et al. Feedback on the usefulness of an illustrated guidebook in an anatomical dissection course. Surg Radiol Anat 41, 1173–1179 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00276-019-02194-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00276-019-02194-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation