2004
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.01897.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluation of a surgical simulator for learning clinical anatomy

Abstract: Our results show that this surgical simulator is at least as effective as textbook images for learning anatomy and could enhance student learning through increased motivation. These findings provide insight into simulator development and strategies for learning anatomy. Possible explanations and future research directions are discussed.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

4
63
2

Year Published

2009
2009
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 79 publications
(71 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
4
63
2
Order By: Relevance
“…This includes the use of prosections versus dissections of cadaveric materials [2,3], problem-based learning (PBL) [4,5], virtual-reality surgical simulators [6], computer-aided instruction [7] amongst others. Plastination was introduced by Professor Gunther von Hagens in 1977 [8] as a method of preservation of cadavers and biological OPEN    ACCESS specimens keeping it fulsome, lifelike and indefinitely antiseptic.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This includes the use of prosections versus dissections of cadaveric materials [2,3], problem-based learning (PBL) [4,5], virtual-reality surgical simulators [6], computer-aided instruction [7] amongst others. Plastination was introduced by Professor Gunther von Hagens in 1977 [8] as a method of preservation of cadavers and biological OPEN    ACCESS specimens keeping it fulsome, lifelike and indefinitely antiseptic.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Some studies report benefits of using computer-based programs over traditional material (Garg, Norman, & Sperotable, 2001;Luursema, Verwey, Kommers, & Annema, 2008;Luursema, Verwey, Kommers, Geelkerken, & Vos, 2006;Nicholson, Chalk, Funnell, & Daniel, 2006). Other studies report computer-based programs to be either as efficient as traditional teaching material (Codd & Chaudhury, 2011;Hariri, Rawn, Srivastava, Youngblood, & Ladd, 2004;Garg, Norman, Eva, Spero, & Sharan, 2002;Keedy, et aI., 2011), or inferior to traditional approaches (Garg, Norman, Spero, & Maheshwari, 1999;Levinson, Weaver, Garside, McGinn, & Norman, 2007). However, the relatively poor performance by computerbased groups in these studies can be explained by several points.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 44%
“…Several other anatomical models have been created for anatomical education, including the bones of the wrist (Garg et al, 1999), the inner ear (Nicholson et al, 2006), the skull base and cranial nerves (Kakizawa et al, 2007), the abdomen (Luursema et al, 2006), the shoulder (Hariri et al, 2004), and the male pelvis (Brooks et al, 1998;Venuti et al, 2004). The effectiveness of these computer generated models as a viable and effective teaching tool is still under great debate.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 98%