Dynamic three‐dimensional virtual environment to improve learning of anatomical structures

Abstract

Increasing number of medical students and limited availability of cadavers have led to a reduction in anatomy teaching through human cadaveric dissection. These changes triggered the emergence of innovative teaching and learning strategies in order to maximize students learning of anatomy. An alternative approach to traditional dissection was presented in an effort to improve content delivery and student satisfaction.The objective of this study is to acquire three-dimensional (3D) anatomical data using structured-light surface scanning to create a dynamic four-dimensional (4D) dissection tool of four regions: neck, male inguinal and femoral areas, female perineum, and brachial plexus. At each dissection step, identified anatomical structures were scanned using a 3D surface scanner (Artec Spider™). Resulting 3D color meshes were overlaid to create a 4D (3D+time) environment. An educational interface was created for neck dissection. Its implementation in the visualization platform allowed 4D virtual dissection by navigating from surface to deep layers and vice versa. A group of 28 second-year medical students and 17 first-year surgery residents completed a satisfaction survey. A majority of medical students (96.4%) and 100% of surgery residents said that they would recommend this tool to their colleagues. According to surgery residents, the main elements of this virtual tool were the realistic high-quality of 3D acquisitions and possibility to focus on each anatomical structure. As for medical students, major elements were the interactivity and entertainment aspect, precision, and accuracy of anatomical structures. This approach proves that innovative solutions to anatomy education can be found to help to maintain critical content and student satisfaction in anatomy curriculum.

Achievement of learning outcomes in non‐traditional (online) versus traditional (face‐to‐face) anatomy teaching in medical schools: A mixed method systematic review

“…The students were allowed to choose their participation voluntarily. For cross‐sectional studies, one study was graded as moderate risk of bias owing to confounding variables and missing data for the control group (Duraes et al, 2022 ). Fourteen studies were low risk (Banovac et al, 2021 ; Cuschieri & Calleja, 2020 ; Fang et al, 2014 ; Hanafy et al, 2021 ; Khan et al, 2021 ; Khasawneh, 2021 ; Natsis et al, 2022 ; Ortadeveci et al, 2022 ; Özen et al, 2022 ; Potu et al, 2021 ; Sharma et al, 2021 ; Singal et al, 2021 ; Srinivasan, 2020 ; Totlis et al, 2021 ).…”

“…Two studies had selection bias owing to low sample sizes—fewer than 20 participants (Fang et al, 2014 ; Srinivasan, 2020 ). For measurement of outcomes, two studies (Duraes et al, 2022 ; Srinivasan, 2020 ) had no quantitative data for the outcomes of the control group and were classed as having an unclear risk of reporting bias. All the cohort studies were graded as low risk of bias owing to confounding variables (Choi‐Lundberg et al, 2016 ; El Sadik & Al Abdulmonem, 2021 ; Harrell et al, 2021 ; Nagaraj et al, 2021 ; Nathaniel et al, 2021 ; Stunden et al, 2021 ; Thom et al, 2021 ; Tucker & Anderson, 2021 ; Yoo et al, 2021 ; Zarcone & Saverino, 2022 ).…”

“…Two studies had selection bias owing to low sample sizes-fewer than 20 participants (Fang et al, 2014;Srinivasan, 2020). For measurement of outcomes, two studies (Duraes et al, 2022;Srinivasan, 2020) Two studies had low risk of reporting bias owing to missing data (Harrell et al, 2021;Tucker & Anderson, 2021) as the number of students in the control group was not reported. For measurement of outcomes, two studies (Harrell et al, 2021;Nagaraj et al, 2021)…”

The future of anatomy education: Learning from Covid‐19 disruption

“…Some of these changes are in response to new emerging pedagogical approaches such as moves to a blended learning construct (Pereira et al, 2007; Green & Whitburn, 2016; Khalil et al, 2018), integrated curricula (Evans & Watt, 2005; Klement et al, 2011, 2017), an emphasis on interprofessional learning (Hamilton et al, 2008; Herrmann et al, 2015; Smith et al, 2015) and near‐peer teaching (Evans & Cuffe, 2009; Morris et al, 2018; Harrison et al, 2019). The rise of digital innovations has enabled virtual dissection (Darras et al, 2020; Wainman et al, 2021; Duraes et al, 2022), three‐dimensional (3D) printing (McMenamin et al, 2014; Smith et al 2018; Ye et al, 2020), ultrasound (Swamy & Searle, 2012; Smith & Barfoot, 2021; Lufler et al, 2022), gamification (Ang et al, 2018; Rudolphi‐Solero et al, 2022; Tan et al, 2022) as well as virtual and augmented reality (Moro et al, 2017; Uruthiralingam & Rea, 2020; Zhao et al, 2020; Jiang et al, 2022) to become common features in many programs. Technology has also started to disrupt the way in which students are assessed with interactive e‐assessments being increasingly utilized (Elzainy et al, 2020; Chakrabarti, 2020; Bogomolova et al, 2021).…”

Has pedagogy, technology, and Covid‐19 killed the face‐to‐face lecture?

“…Computer‐based educational innovations and interventions are not new to anatomy educators who for many years have been proactive in using a variety of technologies and e‐learning resources as part of the delivery of anatomical science education (Trelease, 2016 ). Such digital advances have enabled virtual dissection (Darras et al, 2020 ; Wainman et al, 2021 ; Duraes et al, 2022 ), three‐dimensional (3D) printing (McMenamin et al, 2014 ; Smith et al, 2018 ; Ye et al, 2020 ), ultrasound (Swamy & Searle, 2012 ; Smith & Barfoot, 2021 ; Lufler et al, 2022 ), gamification (Ang et al, 2018 ; Rudolphi‐Solero et al, 2022 ; Tan et al, 2022 ) as well as virtual and augmented reality (Moro et al, 2017 ; Uruthiralingam & Rea, 2020 ; Zhao et al, 2020 ) to become included in many courses. Approaches are often integrated with more traditional methods in blended formats and have helped shape the changing learning environments for students and have shown to enhance learning (Estai & Bunt, 2016 ; Lochner et al, 2016 : Pawlina & Drake, 2017 ).…”