Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Are extended reality technologies (ERTs) more effective than traditional anatomy education methods?

  • Review
  • Published:
Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Reviews and meta-analyses concerning the effectiveness of extended reality technologies (ERTs) (namely virtual, augmented, and mixed reality-VR, AR, and MR) in anatomy education (AE) have resulted in conflicting outcomes. The current review explores the existing evidence provided by reviews of AE literature regarding the effectiveness of ERTs after their comparison with traditional (either cadaveric or two-dimensional) anatomy teaching modalities and sheds light on the factors associated with the conflicting outcomes.

Methods

PubMed, SCOPUS, ERIC, and Cochrane databases were searched for review articles with the purpose to investigate the effectiveness of ERTs in AE.

Results

Nine (four systematic with or without meta-analysis and five non-systematic) reviews were included. A lack of robust evidence provided by those reviews was noted, mainly due to a remarkable confusion in the definition of each ERT, along with confusion when authors referred to traditional AE (TAE) methods.

Conclusions

To clarify to what extent VR, AR, or MR can replace or supplement TAE methods, there is a primary need for addressing issues regarding the definition of each technology and determining which specific TAE methods are used as comparators.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

ERTs:

Extended reality technologies

VR:

Virtual reality

AR:

Augmented reality

MR:

Mixed reality

AE:

Anatomy education

TAE:

Traditional anatomy education

3D:

Three-dimensional

2D:

Two-dimensional

VDTs:

Virtual dissection tables

References

  1. Bölek KA, De Jong G, Henssen D (2021) The effectiveness of the use of augmented reality in anatomy education: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci Rep 11:15292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Brigham TJ (2017) Reality Check: Basics of Augmented, Virtual, and Mixed Reality. Med Ref Serv Q 36:171–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Chytas D, Johnson EO, Piagkou M, Mazarakis A, Babis GC, Chronopoulos E, Nikolaou VS, Lazaridis N, Natsis K (2020) The role of augmented reality in Anatomical education: an overview. Ann Anat 229:151463

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Chytas D, Salmas M, Skandalakis GP, Troupis T (2022) Augmented and virtual reality in anatomy education: Can they be effective if they do not provide immersive experience? Anat Sci Educ 15:431–433

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Deng X, Zhou G, Xiao B, Zhao Z, He Y, Chen C (2018) Effectiveness evaluation of digital virtual simulation application in teaching of gross anatomy. Ann Anat 218:276–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Duarte ML, Santos LR, Guimarães Júnior JB, Peccin MS (2020) Learning anatomy by virtual reality and augmented reality. A scope review. Morphologie 104:254–266

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Goo HW, Park SJ, Yoo SJ (2020) Advanced medical use of three-dimensional imaging in congenital heart disease: augmented reality, mixed reality, virtual reality, and three-dimensional printing. Korean J Radiol 21:133–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Karbasi Z, Niakan Kalhori SR (2020) Application and evaluation of virtual technologies for anatomy education to medical students: A review. Med J Islam Repub Iran 34:163

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Moro C, Birt J, Stromberga Z, Phelps C, Clark J, Glasziou P, Scott AM (2021) Virtual and augmented reality enhancements to medical and science student physiology and anatomy test performance: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Anat Sci Educ 14:368–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Moro C, Štromberga Z, Raikos A, Stirling A (2017) The effectiveness of virtual and augmented reality in health sciences and medical anatomy. Anat Sci Educ 10:549–559

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Romand M, Dugas D, Gaudet-Blavignac C, Rochat J, Lovis C (2020) Mixed and augmented reality tools in the medical anatomy curriculum. Stud Health Technol Inform 270:322–326

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Skandalakis GP, Chytas D, Paraskevas G, Noussios G, Salmas M, Fiska A (2021) Virtual and augmented reality in anatomy education: need for comparison with other three-dimensional visualization methods. Morphologie S1286–0115(21):00030–00038

    Google Scholar 

  13. Taylor L, Dyer T, Al-Azzawi M, Smith C, Nzeako O, Shah Z (2021) Extended reality anatomy undergraduate teaching: a literature review on an alternative method of learning. Ann Anat 239:151817

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Uruthiralingam U, Rea PM (2020) Augmented and virtual reality in anatomical education—a systematic review. Adv Exp Med Biol 1235:89–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Zhao J, Xu X, Jiang H, Ding Y (2020) The effectiveness of virtual reality-based technology on anatomy teaching: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. BMC Med Educ 20:127

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No funding was received.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Basic Sciences Laboratory, Department of Physiotherapy, University of Peloponnese, Sparta, Greece

    Dimitrios Chytas

  2. Department of Anatomy, School of Medicine, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece

    Maria Piagkou, Theano Demesticha & George Tsakotos

  3. Department of Anatomy and Surgical Anatomy, School of Medicine, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece

    Konstantinos Natsis

Authors
  1. Dimitrios Chytas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maria Piagkou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Theano Demesticha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. George Tsakotos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Konstantinos Natsis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

DC: project development, data collection and analysis, manuscript writing, editing, and revision; MP: data analysis, manuscript writing, editing, and revision; TD and GT: manuscript editing; KN: manuscript editing and supervision. All the authors approved the final draft of the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maria Piagkou.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chytas, D., Piagkou, M., Demesticha, T. et al. Are extended reality technologies (ERTs) more effective than traditional anatomy education methods?. Surg Radiol Anat 44, 1215–1218 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00276-022-02998-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00276-022-02998-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation