Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy

, Volume 32, Issue 7, pp 647–652 | Cite as

Traditional versus three-dimensional teaching of peritoneal embryogenesis: a comparative prospective study

  • Bassem Abid
  • Nejmeddine Hentati
  • Jean-Marc Chevallier
  • Ali Ghorbel
  • Vincent Delmas
  • Richard Douard
Original Article



Anatomy teaching is newly boosted by the development of interactive three-dimensional (3D) teaching techniques. Nevertheless, their superiority as teaching aids has never been demonstrated. The aim of this study was to compare 3D and traditional chalk teaching efficiency in terms of student memorization concerning peritoneal embryogenesis.

Materials and methods

165 students from the Faculties of Medicine of Sfax (Tunisia) (n = 81) and of Paris-Descartes (France) (n = 84) were taught peritoneal embryogenesis either via a 3D technique (interactive DVD ROM) (3D group, n = 85) or via the traditional chalk technique (CL group, n = 80). Both groups were subjected to an evaluation test including 34 questions distributed in six chapters at the end of the course.


The overall rate of correct answers was higher in the 3D group (65.12 ± 14.88 vs. 49.33 ± 16.17%, p < 0.001). It was the same for five of the six chapters of questions excluding the chapter concerning the clinical implications (p = 0.06). There was no significant difference between 3D and CL groups regarding the 20 questions focusing on static phenomena (64.52 ± 27.10 vs. 58.87 ± 23.67%, p = 0.24), but the rate of correct answers was higher in the 3D group for the 14 questions focusing on dynamic phenomena (65.96 ± 20.97 vs. 28.17 ± 24.40%, p < 0.001).


The 3D technique is significantly more efficient than the traditional chalk technique for the teaching of peritoneal embryogenesis in terms of short-term memorization and particularly for the assimilation of dynamic phenomena. Medium-term and long-term studies are needed to demonstrate that this benefit has a long-lasting impact.


Anatomy Teaching Computer-assisted teaching Three-dimensional simulations GEFTAC Peritoneal embryogenesis URDIA 



The authors would like to thank Pierre Ratier for his help in the preparation of manuscript and for constant support.


  1. 1.
    Abid B (2005) L’organogenèse du péritoine, DVD Rom Interactif multimédia, Thèse de Doctorat, Faculté de médecine de Sfax, TunisieGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arraez-Aybar A, Merida-Velasco R, Rodriguez-Vazquez J, Jimenez-Collado J (1994) A computerised technique for morphometry and 3D reconstruction of embryological structures. Surg Radiol Anat 16(4):419–422CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Guttmann D (1999) Spilling the beans on java 3D: a tool for the virtual anatomist. Anat Rec 257(2):73–79CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Haluck S, Krummel M (2000) Computers and virtual reality for surgical education in the 21st century. Arch Surg 135(7):786–792CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    McKeown P, Heylings J, Stevenson M, McKelvey J, Nixon R, McCluskey R (2003) The impact of curricular change on medical students’ knowledge of anatomy. Med Educ 37(11):954–961CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    McLachlan C, Patten D (2006) Anatomy teaching: ghosts of the past, present and future. Med Educ 40(3):243–253CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nieder L, Scott N, Anderson D (2000) Using QuickTime virtual reality objects in computer-assisted instruction of gross anatomy: Yorick—the VR skull. Clin Anat 13(4):287–293CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Patel KM, Moxham BJ (2006) Attitudes of professional anatomists to curricular change. Clin Anat 19(2):132–141CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Patel KM, Moxham BJ (2008) The relationships between learning outcomes and methods of teaching anatomy as perceived by professional anatomists. Clin Anat 21(2):182–189CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Patel S (2009) Anatomy: too much too soon at medical school. Clin Anat 22(2):287CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Plaisant O, Cabanis A, Delmas V (2004) Going back to dissection in a medical curriculum: the paradigm of Necker-Enfants Maladies. Surg Radiol Anat 26(6):504–511CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Prince J, Scherpbier J, Mameren H, Drukker J, Vleuten P (2005) Do students have sufficient knowledge of clinical anatomy? Med Educ 39(3):326–332CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rizzolo J, Stewart B (2006) Should we continue teaching anatomy by dissection when? Anat Rec B New Anat 289(6):215–218PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Scallon E, Fairholm J, Cochrane D, Taylor C (1992) Evaluation of the operating room as a surgical teaching venue. Can J Surg 35(2):173–176PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Uhl F, Plaisant O, Ami O, Delmas V (2006) 3D modeling in the field of morphology: methods, interest and results. Morphologie 90(288):5–20CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Waterston W, Stewart J (2005) Survey of clinicians’ attitudes to the anatomical teaching and knowledge of medical students. Clin Anat 18(5):380–384CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bassem Abid
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Nejmeddine Hentati
    • 2
    • 3
  • Jean-Marc Chevallier
    • 1
  • Ali Ghorbel
    • 2
    • 3
  • Vincent Delmas
    • 1
  • Richard Douard
    • 1
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.URDIA Anatomie, Faculté de Médecine Paris-DescartesUniversité Paris VParisFrance
  2. 2.Laboratoire d’Anatomie, Faculté de Médecine de SfaxSfaxTunisia
  3. 3.GEFTAC: Groupe d’Etudes Franco-Tunisien en Anatomie Chirurgicale, Laboratoire d’Anatomie, Faculté de Médecine de SfaxSfaxTunisia
  4. 4.Unité de Chirurgie Digestive et Endocrinienne, Hôpital CochinParis Cedex 14France

Personalised recommendations