Daniel Paech1,2, Frederik L Giesel3, Roland Unterhinninghofen4, Heinz-Peter Schlemmer5, Thomas Kuner6, Sara Doll6. 1. Department of Radiology, German Cancer Research Center, Im Neuenheimer Feld 280, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. d.paech@dkfz.de. 2. Institute of Anatomy and Cell Biology, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany. d.paech@dkfz.de. 3. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. 4. Institute of Anthropomatics, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Karlsruhe, Germany. 5. Department of Radiology, German Cancer Research Center, Im Neuenheimer Feld 280, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. 6. Institute of Anatomy and Cell Biology, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany.
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.
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.
Authors: Fabian Rengier; Matthias F Häfner; Roland Unterhinninghofen; Ralph Nawrotzki; Joachim Kirsch; Hans-Ulrich Kauczor; Frederik L Giesel Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2013-02-13 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Stanley Jacobson; Scott K Epstein; Susan Albright; Joseph Ochieng; Jeffrey Griffiths; Veronica Coppersmith; Joseph F Polak Journal: Med Teach Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 3.650
Authors: Daniel Paech; Kerstin Klopries; Sara Doll; Ralph Nawrotzki; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; Frederik L Giesel; Thomas Kuner Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-01-30 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Kathryn E Darras; Rebecca Spouge; Rose Hatala; Savvas Nicolaou; Jeff Hu; Anne Worthington; Claudia Krebs; Bruce B Forster Journal: BMC Med Educ Date: 2019-10-07 Impact factor: 2.463
Authors: Anna Bartoletti-Stella; Valentina Gatta; Giulia Adalgisa Mariani; Pietro Gobbi; Mirella Falconi; Lucia Manzoli; Irene Faenza; Sara Salucci Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-12-16 Impact factor: 3.390