Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluating the Anatomage Table Compared to Cadaveric Dissection as a Learning Modality for Gross Anatomy

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Medical Science Educator Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness and qualitative experience of learning gross anatomy of the pelvis and perineum (P/P) and musculoskeletal system (MSK) via cadaveric dissection to learning these same anatomical regions using the Anatomage table. The Anatomage table is an anatomical visualization system that projects male and female gross anatomical structures from human cadavers onto a life-sized touchscreen table. A crossover design was implemented. Four volunteer dissection groups, consisting of four students each, were randomly assigned to dissect P/P on the Anatomage table and MSK (upper and lower limb) not on the cadaver lab or vice versa. Participating students completed surveys before and after each lab, formative quizzes following each lab, and summative final practical exams on both the Anatomage table and in the cadaver lab. Results indicated that when studying on the Anatomage table, students were more excited before and after labs and perceived a greater degree of learning. The groups did not demonstrate a significant difference in P/P knowledge based on quiz results; however, the Anatomage group had a significantly higher mean score on quizzes in MSK anatomy. Finally, the practical exam results suggest that for some anatomical regions, students may perform similarly regardless of the modality on which they were instructed.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kozma RB. National policies that connect ICT-based education reform to economic and social development. Human Technology: An interdisciplinary journal on humans in ICT environments. 2005;1(2):117–156.

  2. Resta P, Laferrière T. Technology in support of collaborative learning. Educ Psychol Rev. 2007;19:65–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Buckenmeyer JA, Barczyk C, Hixon E, Zamojski H, Tomory A. Technology’s role in learning at a commuter campus: the student perspective. J Furth High Educ. 2016;40(3):412–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Roblyer MD. Integrating educational technology into teaching. 3rd ed. Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  5. DiLullo C, McGee P, Kriebel RM. Demystifying the millennial student: a reassessment in measures of character and engagement in professional education. Anat Sci Educ. 2011;4(4):214–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ghosh SK. Cadaveric dissection as an educational tool for anatomical sciences in the 21st century. Anat Sci Educ. 2017;10(3):286–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Serageldin I. Ancient Alexandria and the dawn of medical science. Glob Cardiol Sci Pract. 2013;4:395–404.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Fulton JF. History of medical education. Br Med J. 1953;2(4834):457–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Yammine K, Violato C. A meta-analysis of the educational effectiveness of three-dimensional visualization technologies in teaching anatomy. Anat Sci Educ. 2015;8(6):525–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Hildebrandt S. Lessons to be learned from the history of anatomical teaching in the United States: the example of the University of Michigan. Anat Sci Educ. 2010;3(4):202–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. McBride JM, Drake RL. National survey on anatomical sciences in medical education. Anat Sci Educ. 2018;11(1):7–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Küçük S, Kapakin S, Göktaş Y. Learning anatomy via mobile augmented reality: effects on achievement and cognitive load. Anat Sci Educ. 2016;9(5):411–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. McHanwell SM, Davies DC, Morris J, Parkin I, Whiten S, Atkinson M, et al. A core syllabus in anatomy for medical students - adding common sense to need to know. Eur J Anat. 2007;11:3–18.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Op den Akker JW, Bohnen A, Oudegeest WJ, Hillen B. Giving color to a new curriculum: body paint as a tool in medical education. Clin Anat. 2002;15(5):356–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Ahmed K, Rowland S, Patel V, Khan RS, Ashrafian H, Davies DC, et al. Is the structure of anatomy curriculum adequate for safe medical practice? Surge. 2010;8(6):318–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kraszpulska B, Bomkamp D, Brueckner-Collins J. Benefits of traditional cadaveric dissection in a digital world: medical and dental students’ perspectives. Med Sci Educ. 2013;23(1):27–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03341800.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Goldman E. Building a low-cost gross anatomy laboratory: a big step for a small university. Anat Sci Educ. 2010;3(4):195–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Mayfield CH, Ohara PT, O’Sullivan PS. Perceptions of a mobile technology on learning strategies in the anatomy laboratory. Anat Sci Educ. 2013;6(2):81–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. McLachlan JC, Patten D. Anatomy teaching: ghosts of the past, present and future. Med Educ. 2006;40(3):243–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Stepan K, Zeiger J, Hanchuk S, Del Signore A, Shrivastava R, Govindaraj S, et al. Immersive virtual reality as a teaching tool for neuroanatomy. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2017;7(10):1006–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Sugand K, Abrahams P, Khurana A. The anatomy of anatomy: a review for its modernization. Anat Sci Educ. 2010;3(2):83–93.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Johnson EO, Charchanti AV, Troupis TG. Modernization of an anatomy class: from conceptualization to implementation. A case for integrated multimodal-multidisciplinary teaching. Anat Sci Educ. 2012;5(6):354–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Mitchell BS, Stephens CR. Teaching anatomy as a multimedia experience. Med Educ. 2004;38(8):911–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Elizondo-Omaña RE, Guzmán-López S, García-Rodríguez ML. Dissection as a teaching tool: past, present and future. Anat Rec B New Anat. 2005;285(1):11–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Fredieu JR, Kerbo J, Herron M, Klatte R, Cooke M. Anatomical Models: a Digital Revolution. Med Sci Educ. 2015;25(2):183–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-015-0115-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Estai M, Bunt S. Best teaching practices in anatomy education: a critical review. Ann Anat. 2016;208:151–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Hisley KC, Anderson LD, Smith SE, Kavic SM, Tracy JK. Coupled physical and digital cadaver dissection followed by a visual test protocol provides insights into the nature of anatomical knowledge and its evaluation. Anat Sci Educ. 2008;1(1):27–40. https://doi.org/10.1002/ASE.4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Hall S, Stephens J, Parton W, Myers M, Harrison C, Elmansouri A, et al. Identifying medical student perceptions on the difficulty of learning different topics of the undergraduate anatomy curriculum. Med Sci Educ. 2018;28(3):469–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-018-0572-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge Klara Papp Ph.D. for her invaluable support in this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Arison School of Business, Interdisciplinary Center, Herzliya, Israel

    Guy Baratz

  2. Department of Pharmacology, School of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, 44106, USA

    Amy L. Wilson-Delfosse

  3. Department of Anatomy, School of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, 44106, USA

    Bryan M. Singelyn, Barbara K. Freeman & Susanne Wish-Baratz

  4. School of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, 44106, USA

    Kevin C. Allan, Gabrielle E. Rieth & Brenden P. Jenks

  5. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The University of Chicago Medical Center, Chicago, IL, 60637, USA

    Rubina Ratnaparkhi

  6. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, OH, 44106, USA

    Caitlin Carlton

Authors
  1. Guy Baratz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Amy L. Wilson-Delfosse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bryan M. Singelyn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kevin C. Allan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Gabrielle E. Rieth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Rubina Ratnaparkhi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Brenden P. Jenks
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Caitlin Carlton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Barbara K. Freeman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Susanne Wish-Baratz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Susanne Wish-Baratz.

Ethics declarations

Ethical Approval

The protocol for this study was given exempt status by the Institutional Review Board of Case Western Reserve University (IRB# 2015-1035).

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Baratz, G., Wilson-Delfosse, A.L., Singelyn, B.M. et al. Evaluating the Anatomage Table Compared to Cadaveric Dissection as a Learning Modality for Gross Anatomy. Med.Sci.Educ. 29, 499–506 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-019-00719-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-019-00719-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation