Objective: Recently, with the inability to conduct face-to-face training due to the increasing cases of pandemic diseases such as the coronavirus disease-2019, the importance of digital applications in practical anatomy education has increased. This study aimed to compare cadaveric and non-cadaveric examination methods to evaluate the benefits of innovative models for education. Materials and Methods: A total of 120 second-year medical student volunteers who had never used the three-dimensional (3D) Human Anatomy Application participated in the study. They were asked to fill out a questionnaire containing their opinions about the anatomy lesson. Then, the students were randomly divided into three groups according to their learning methods. Results: Among the participants, 75.9% stated that working on the model was sufficient and 36.7% mostly used the printed human anatomy atlas when studying for practical lesson. While the success rates of different modules were similar in the practice groups, in the same module, the success of the 3D Human Anatomy Application group was higher than that of other practice groups. Conclusion: Although they had not used it before, students who received training with the 3D Human Anatomy Application were more successful than the other groups. 3D applications developed in recent years have offered a new perspective to anatomy education by creating a sense of reality without touching it and allow formations and examinations from all angles. With the emergence of pandemic diseases, 3D applications will gain more importance as the future of anatomy education.
Amaç: Son yıllarda koronavirüs hastalığı-2019 gibi pandemik hastalıkların artmasıyla yüz yüze eğitimin yapılamaması anatomi uygulama eğitiminde dijital uygulamaların önemini artırmıştır. Gelişen teknolojinin yarattığı yenilikçi modellerin eğitime sağladığı yararları değerlendirmek için kadavra dışında kullandığımız yöntemleri kıyaslamak istedik. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Çalışmamıza üç boyutlu (3D) İnsan Anatomisi Uygulaması’nı hiç kullanmayan 120 ikinci sınıf tıp öğrencisi gönüllü katıldı. Öğrencilerden anatomi dersi ile ilgili görüşlerini içeren bir anket doldurmaları istendi. Daha sonra öğrenciler öğrenme yöntemlerine göre rastgele üç gruba ayrıldı. Bulgular: Anket sonucunda öğrencilerin %75,9’u maket üzerinde çalışmanın yeterli olduğunu, %36,7’si uygulama dersi için çalışırken en çok basılı insan anatomisi atlasını kullandığını belirtmiştir. Test sonucunda ise uygulama gruplarında farklı ders kurulları arasında başarı benzerken, aynı ders kurulunda 3D İnsan Anatomisi Uygulama grubunun başarısı diğer uygulama gruplarına göre daha yüksekti. Sonuç: Daha önce kullanmadıkları halde 3D İnsan Anatomisi Uygulaması ile eğitim alan öğrenciler diğer gruplara göre daha başarılı oldular. Son yıllarda gelişen 3D anatomi uygulamaları, dokunmadan gerçeklik hissi yaratarak ve oluşumların tüm açılardan incelenmesine olanak sağlayarak anatomi eğitimine yeni bir bakış açısı sunmuştur. Artan pandemik hastalıklar nedeniyle anatomi eğitiminin geleceğinde daha fazla önem kazanacağını düşünüyoruz.
1. Meyer JJ, Obmann MM, Gießler M, Schuldis D, Brückner AK, Strohm PC, et al. Interprofessional approach for teaching functional knee joint anatomy. Ann Anat 2017; 210: 155-9.
2. Böckers A, Jerg-Bretzke L, Lamp C, Brinkmann A, Traue HC, Böckers TM. The gross anatomy course: an analysis of its importance. Anat Sci Educ 2010; 3: 3-11.
3. McLachlan JC, Patten D. Anatomy teaching: ghosts of the past, present and future. Med Educ 2006; 40: 243-53.
4. Kamphuis C, Barsom E, Schijven M, Christoph N. Augmented reality in medical education? Perspect Med Educ 2014; 3: 300- 11.
5. Kawashiro Y, Anahara R, Kohno T, Mori C, Matsuno Y. Attitudes of healthcare students on gross anatomy laboratory sessions. Anat Sci Educ 2009; 2: 273-9.
6. McLachlan JC, Bligh J, Bradley P, Searle J. Teaching anatomy without cadavers. Med Educ 2004; 38: 418-24.
7. Winkelmann A. Anatomical dissection as a teaching method in medical school: a review of the evidence. Med Educ 2007; 41: 15-22.
8. Zhang L, Wang Y, Xiao M, Han Q, Ding J. An ethical solution to the challenges in teaching anatomy with dissection in the Chinese culture. Anat Sci Educ 2008; 1: 56-9.
9. Trelease RB. From chalkboard, slides, and paper to e-learning: How computing technologies have transformed anatomical sciences education. Anat Sci Educ 2016; 9: 583-602.
10. Fruhstorfer BH, Palmer J, Brydges S, Abrahams PH. The use of plastinated prosections for teaching anatomy--the view of medical students on the value of this learning resource. Clin Anat 2011; 24: 246-52.
11. Azer SA, Eizenberg N. Do we need dissection in an integrated problem-based learning medical course? Perceptions of firstand second-year students. Surg Radiol Anat 2007; 29: 173-80.
12. Riederer BM, Bueno-López JL. Anatomy, respect for the body and body donation-A guide for good practice. Eur J Anat 2014; 18: 361-8.
13. Habicht JL, Kiessling C, Winkelmann A. Bodies for Anatomy Education in Medical Schools: An Overview of the Sources of Cadavers Worldwide. Acad Med 2018; 93: 1293-300.
14. Garment A, Lederer S, Rogers N, Boult L. Let the dead teach the living: the rise of body bequeathal in 20th-century America. Acad Med 2007; 82: 1000-5.
15. Biasutto SN, Sharma N, Weiglein AH, Benia FM, McBride J, BuenoLópez JL, et al. Human bodies to teach anatomy: Importance and procurement-Experience with cadaver donation. Rev Argent Anat Clin 2014; 6: 72-86.
16. Yaqinuddin A, Ikram MF, Zafar M, Eldin NS, Mazhar MA, Qazi S, et al. The integrated clinical anatomy program at Alfaisal University: An innovative model of teaching clinically applied functional anatomy in a hybrid curriculum. Adv Physiol Educ 2016; 40: 56-63.
17. Ang ET, Sugand K, Hartman M, Seow CS, Bay BH, Abrahams P. Singapore’s anatomical future: quo vadis? Anat Sci Educ 2012; 5: 234-40.
18. Chen D, Zhang Q, Deng J, Cai Y, Huang J, Li F, et al. A shortage of cadavers: The predicament of regional anatomy education in mainland China. Anat Sci Educ 2018; 11: 397-402.
19. Pan SQ, Chan LK, Yan Y, Yang X. Survey of Gross Anatomy Education in China: The Past and the Present. Anat Sci Educ 2020; 13: 390-400.
20. Gürses İA, Coşkun O, Öztürk A. Current status of cadaver sources in Turkey and a wake-up call for Turkish anatomists. Anat Sci Educ 2018; 11: 155-65.
21. Sehirli US, Saka E, Sarikaya O. Attitudes of Turkish anatomists toward cadaver donation. Clin Anat 2004; 17: 677-81.
22. Akbulut S, Yilmaz S. Liver transplantation in Turkey: historical review and future perspectives. Transplant Rev (Orlando) 2015; 29: 161-7.
23. McHanwell S, Brenner E, Chirculescu Arm, Drukker J, Van Mameren H, Mazzotti G, et al. The legal and ethical framework governing Body Donation in Europe-A review of current practice and recommendations for good practice. Eur J Anat 2008; 12: 1-24.
24. Riederer BM, Bolt S, Brenner E, Bueno-López JL, Circulescu ARM, Davies DC, et al. The legal and ethical framework governing Body Donation in Europe-1st update on current practice. Eur J Anat 2012; 16: 1-21.
25. McMenamin PG, Quayle MR, McHenry CR, Adams JW. The production of anatomical teaching resources using threedimensional (3D) printing technology. Anat Sci Educ 2014; 7: 479-86.
26. Chen D, Zhang Q, Deng J, Cai Y, Huang J, Li F, et al. A shortage of cadavers: The predicament of regional anatomy education in mainland China. Anat Sci Educ 2018; 11: 397-402.
27. Ozdalga E, Ozdalga A, Ahuja N. The smartphone in medicine: a review of current and potential use among physicians and students. J Med Internet Res 2012; 14: 128.
28. McMenamin PG, Quayle MR, McHenry CR, Adams JW. The production of anatomical teaching resources using threedimensional (3D) printing technology. Anat Sci Educ 2014; 7: 479-86.
29. Richter JP. The Notebooks of Leonardo da Vinci. 1880; 796. 30. Brassett C, Cosker T, Davies DC, Dockery P, Gillingwater TH, Lee TC, et al. COVID-19 and anatomy: Stimulus and initial response. J Anat 2020; 237: 393-403.
31. Singal A, Bansal A, Chaudhary P. Cadaverless anatomy: Darkness in the times of pandemic Covid-19. Morphologie 2020; 104: 147- 50.
32. Pather N, Blyth P, Chapman JA, Dayal MR, Flack NAMS, Fogg QA, et al. Forced Disruption of Anatomy Education in Australia and New Zealand: An Acute Response to the Covid-19 Pandemic. Anat Sci Educ 2020; 13: 284-300.
33. Ghosh SK. Cadaveric dissection as an educational tool for anatomical sciences in the 21st century. Anat Sci Educ 2017; 10: 286-99.
34. Stirling A, Birt J. An enriched multimedia eBook application to facilitate learning of anatomy. Anat Sci Educ 2014; 7: 19-27.
35. Hu M, Wattchow D, de Fontgalland D. From ancient to avantgarde: a review of traditional and modern multimodal approaches to surgical anatomy education. ANZ J Surg 2018; 88: 146-51.
36. Azer SA, Azer S. 3D anatomy models and impact on learning: a review of the quality of the literature. Health Professions Education 2016; 2: 80-98.
37. Chytas D, Piagkou M, Johnson EO, Tsakotos G, Mazarakis A, Babis GC, et al. Outcomes of the use of plastination in anatomy education: current evidence. Surg Radiol Anat 2019; 41: 1181-6.
38. Gholipour B. Disappearing bodies. Sci Am 2019; 321: 12-5.
39. Bahner DP, Adkins EJ, Hughes D, Barrie M, Boulger CT, Royall NA. Integrated medical school ultrasound: development of an ultrasound vertical curriculum. Crit Ultrasound J 2013; 5: 6.
40. Peeler J, Bergen H, Bulow A. Musculoskeletal Anatomy Education: Evaluating the Influence of Different Teaching and Learning Activities on Medical Students Perception and Academic Performance. Ann Anat 2018; 219: 44-50.
41. Chen S, Pan Z, Wu Y, Gu Z, Li M, Liang Z, et al. The role of threedimensional printed models of skull in anatomy education: a randomized controlled trail. Sci Rep 2017; 7: 575.
42. Lim KH, Loo ZY, Goldie SJ, Adams JW, McMenamin PG. Use of 3D printed models in medical education: A randomized control trial comparing 3D prints versus cadaveric materials for learning external cardiac anatomy. Anat Sci Educ 2016; 9: 213-21.
43. Garas M, Vaccarezza M, Newland G, McVay-Doornbusch K, Hasani J. 3D-Printed specimens as a valuable tool in anatomy education: A pilot study. Ann Anat 2018; 219: 57-64.
44. Fyfe G, Fyfe S, Dye D. Australian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education Annual Conference. Use of Anatomage tables in a large first year core unit. The Learning and Technology Library, Global U- Learning & Technology Innovation https://www.learntechlib.org/p/171142/ Updated June 14, 2020. Accessed April 23, 2019.
45. Bork F, Stratmann L, Enssle S, Eck U, Navab N, Waschke J, et al. The Benefits of an Augmented Reality Magic Mirror System for Integrated Radiology Teaching in Gross Anatomy. Anat Sci Educ 2019; 12: 585-98.
46. Jaffar AA. Exploring the use of a Facebook page in anatomy education. Anat Sci Educ 2014; 7: 199-208.
47. Moore CL, Copel JA. Point-of-care ultrasonography. N Engl J Med 2011; 364: 749-57.
48. So S, Patel RM, Orebaugh SL. Ultrasound imaging in medical student education: Impact on learning anatomy and physical diagnosis. Anat Sci Educ 2017; 10: 176-89.
49. Moscova M, Bryce DA, Sindhusake D, Young N. Integration of medical imaging including ultrasound into a new clinical anatomy curriculum. Anat Sci Educ 2015; 8: 205-20.
50. Ivanusic J, Cowie B, Barrington M. Undergraduate student perceptions of the use of ultrasonography in the study of “living anatomy”. Anat Sci Educ 2010; 3: 318-22.
51. Petriceks AH, Peterson AS, Angeles M, Brown WP, Srivastava S. Photogrammetry of Human Specimens: An Innovation in Anatomy Education. J Med Educ Curric Dev 2018; 5: 2382120518799356.
52. Penny AR. Changing the agenda for research into students’ views about university teaching: four shortcomings of SRT research. Teaching in Higher Education 2003; 8: 399-411.
53. Davis CR, Bates AS, Ellis H, Roberts AM. Human anatomy: let the students tell us how to teach. Anat Sci Educ 2014; 7: 262-72.
54. Uygur R, Çağlar V, Topçu B, Aktaş S, Özen OA. The Assessment of the Students’ Opinions about Anatomy Education. Int J Basic Clin Med 2013; 1: 94-106.
55. Küçük S, Kapakin S, Göktaş Y. Medical Faculty Students Views on Anatomy Learning via Mobile Augmented Reality Technology. Journal of Higher Education and Science 2015; 5: 316-23.
56. Wilk R, Likus W, Hudecki A, Syguła M, Różycka-Nechoritis A, Nechoritis K. What would you like to print? Students’ opinions on the use of 3D printing technology in medicine. PLoS One 2020; 15: 230851.