Advertisement

European Radiology

, Volume 27, Issue 5, pp 2153–2160 | Cite as

Cadaver-specific CT scans visualized at the dissection table combined with virtual dissection tables improve learning performance in general gross anatomy

  • Daniel Paech
  • Frederik L. Giesel
  • Roland Unterhinninghofen
  • Heinz-Peter Schlemmer
  • Thomas Kuner
  • Sara Doll
Radiological Education

Abstract

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to quantify the benefit of the incorporation of radiologic anatomy (RA), in terms of student training in RA seminars, cadaver CT scans and life-size virtual dissection tables on the learning success in general anatomy.

Methods

Three groups of a total of 238 students were compared in a multiple choice general anatomy exam during first-year gross anatomy: (1) a group (year 2015, n 1 = 50) that received training in radiologic image interpretation (RA seminar) and additional access to cadaver CT scans (CT + seminar group); (2) a group (2011, n 2 = 90) that was trained in the RA seminar only (RA seminar group); (3) a group (2011, n 3 = 98) without any radiologic image interpretation training (conventional anatomy group). Furthermore, the students’ perception of the new curriculum was assessed qualitatively through a survey.

Results

The average test score of the CT + seminar group (21.8 ± 5.0) was significantly higher when compared to both the RA seminar group (18.3 ± 5.0) and the conventional anatomy group (17.1 ± 4.7) (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

The incorporation of cadaver CT scans and life-size virtual dissection tables significantly improved the performance of medical students in general gross anatomy. Medical imaging and virtual dissection should therefore be considered to be part of the standard curriculum of gross anatomy.

Key Points

• Students provided with cadaver CT scans achieved 27 % higher scores in anatomy.

• Radiological education integrated into gross anatomy is highly appreciated by medical students.

• Simultaneous physical and virtual dissection provide unique conditions to study anatomy.

Keywords

Radiology Gross anatomy CT scans Cadaver CT scans Medical education 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to express our sincerest thanks and appreciation to Prof. Dr. Joachim Kirsch for visionary initiating the implementation of radiologic imaging modalities in gross anatomy and the team around Dr. Roland Unterhinninghofen for the enthusiastic contributions to the development of the Anatomy Map software. Particular thanks are also due to the tutors participating in the conception and realization of the new teaching curriculum.

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Prof. Dr. Thomas Kuner. The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article. This study has received funding by the Klaus Tschira Foundation for the development of the AnatomyMap software. One of the authors (DP) has significant statistical expertise. No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper. Institutional review board approval and written informed consent were not required because all data presented in this manuscript were acquired in the course of quality assurance/quality improvement (QA/QI) measures at the Institute of Anatomy and Cell Biology at the University of Heidelberg. The purpose of these investigations is to assess and subsequently improve teaching in the gross anatomy curriculum. Since QA/QI studies are not subject to institutional ethical review, no institutional review board approval had to be requested.

No randomization of any student to any cohort was performed since QA /QI measures were performed before and after curriculum changes. The exams were not part of the final mark for the students. In particular, no individual score or answer by any student was investigated in the course of this study.

Some study subjects or cohorts have been previously reported in: (a) = (b) In the course of her bachelor thesis, Dr. Sara Doll compared the student cohorts from 2010/11 to quantitatively investigate the RA seminar: Doll S (2011) Virtuelle Lehr- und Lernwelten - Optionen und Nutzen. Dargestellt am Beispiel des Seminars “Virtuelle Anatomie” für Erstsemester Studierende an der Medizinischen Fakultät der Universität Heidelberg. DIPLOMA Fachhochschule Nordhessen. [German language]

Methodology: performed at one institution.

References

  1. 1.
    McNiesh LM, Madewell JE, Allman RM (1983) Cadaver radiography in the teaching of gross anatomy. Radiology 148:73–74CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pantoja E, Nagy F, Zambernard J (1985) Clinical radiographs of the cadaver as a teaching aid in anatomy. Radiology 155:28CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bahner DP, Goldman E, Way D, Royall NA, Liu YT (2014) The state of ultrasound education in US medical schools: results of a national survey. Acad Med 89:1681–1686CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Benninger B, Matsler N, Delamarter T (2014) Classic versus millennial medical lab anatomy. Clin Anat 27:988–993CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Miles KA (2005) Diagnostic imaging in undergraduate medical education: an expanding role. Clin Radiol 60:742–745CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    May H, Cohen H, Medlej B, Kornreich L, Peled N, Hershkovitz I (2013) Computed tomography-enhanced anatomy course using enterprise visualization. Anat Sci Educ 6:332–341CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Slon V, Hershkovitz I, May H (2014) The value of cadaver CT scans in gross anatomy laboratory. Anat Sci Educ 7:80–82CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    McLachlan JC, Bligh J, Bradley P, Searle J (2004) Teaching anatomy without cadavers. Med Educ 38:418–424CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Squire L, Novelline R (1985) Radiology should be a required part of the medical school curriculum. Radiology 156:243–244CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Garg AX, Norman G, Sperotable L (2001) How medical students learn spatial anatomy. Lancet 357:363–364CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pandey P, Zimitat C (2007) Medical students’ learning of anatomy: memorisation, understanding and visualisation. Med Educ 41:7–14CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bohl M, Francois W, Gest T (2011) Self-guided clinical cases for medical students based on postmortem CT scans of cadavers. Clin Anat 24:655–663CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lufler RS, Zumwalt AC, Romney CA, Hoagland TM (2010) Incorporating radiology into medical gross anatomy: does the use of cadaver CT scans improve students’ academic performance in anatomy? Anat Sci Educ 3:56–63PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Murakami T, Tajika Y, Ueno H et al (2014) An integrated teaching method of gross anatomy and computed tomography radiology. Anat Sci Educ 7:438–449CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jacobson S, Epstein SK, Albright S et al (2009) Creation of virtual patients from CT images of cadavers to enhance integration of clinical and basic science student learning in anatomy. Med Teach 31:749–751CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hisley KC, Anderson LD, Smith SE, Kavic SM, Tracy JK (2008) 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 1:27–40CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chew FS, Relyea-Chew A, Ochoa ER Jr (2006) Postmortem computed tomography of cadavers embalmed for use in teaching gross anatomy. J Comput Assist Tomogr 30:949–954CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rengier F, Häfner MF, Unterhinninghofen R et al (2013) Integration of interactive three-dimensional image post-processing software into undergraduate radiology education effectively improves diagnostic skills and visual-spatial ability. Eur J Radiol 82:1366–1371CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Doll S (2011) Virtuelle Lehr- und Lernwelten - Optionen und Nutzen. Dargestellt am Beispiel des Seminars “Virtuelle Anatomie” für Erstsemester Studierende an der Medizinischen Fakultät der Universität Heidelberg. Diploma Fachhochschule Nordhessen, University of Applied ScienceGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rengier F, Doll S, von Tengg-Kobligk H, Kirsch J, Kauczor H-U, Giesel F (2009) Integrated teaching of anatomy and radiology using three-dimensional image post-processing. Eur Radiol 19:2870–2877CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rizzolo LJ, Stewart WB, O’Brien M et al (2006) Design principles for developing an efficient clinical anatomy course. Med Teach 28:142–151CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rizzolo LJ, Rando WC, O’Brien MK, Haims AH, Abrahams JJ, Stewart WB (2010) Design, implementation, and evaluation of an innovative anatomy course. Anat Sci Educ 3:109–120PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nwachukwu CR (2014) Cadaver CT scans a useful adjunct in gross anatomy: the medical student perspective. Anat Sci Educ 7:83–84CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Persaud TVN (1984) Early history of human anatomy: from antiquity to the beginning of the modern era. Charles C. Thomas Publisher, SpringfieldGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tam MDBS (2010) Building virtual models by postprocessing radiology images: a guide for anatomy faculty. Anat Sci Educ 3:261–266CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Miller SA, Perrotti W, Silverthorn DU, Dalley AF, Rarey KE (2002) From college to clinic: reasoning over memorization is key for understanding anatomy. Anat Rec 269:69–80CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Reidenberg JS, Laitman JT (2002) The new face of gross anatomy. Anat Rec 269:81–88CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sheikh AH, Barry DS, Gutierrez H, Cryan JF, O’Keeffe GW (2016) Cadaveric anatomy in the future of medical education: what is the surgeons view? Anat Sci Educ 9:203–208CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Older J (2004) Anatomy: a must for teaching the next generation. Surgeon 2:79–90CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    McLachlan JC (2004) New path for teaching anatomy: living anatomy and medical imaging vs. dissection. Anat Rec B New Anat 281B:4–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel Paech
    • 1
    • 2
  • Frederik L. Giesel
    • 3
  • Roland Unterhinninghofen
    • 4
  • Heinz-Peter Schlemmer
    • 1
  • Thomas Kuner
    • 2
  • Sara Doll
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyGerman Cancer Research CenterHeidelbergGermany
  2. 2.Institute of Anatomy and Cell BiologyHeidelberg UniversityHeidelbergGermany
  3. 3.Department of Nuclear MedicineUniversity Hospital HeidelbergHeidelbergGermany
  4. 4.Institute of Anthropomatics, Karlsruhe Institute of TechnologyKarlsruheGermany

Personalised recommendations