Surgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA · 2026
Real vs virtual dissection: a region-based comparison of medical students' perceptions in a French faculty.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Mar Ndeye Bigué, Duigou Marie, Seizeur Romuald, Dissaux Brieg
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To assess the perception of French medical students regarding the use and place of real (traditional) and virtual dissections in learning Anatomy.
METHODS: A questionnaire was offered to all students in an optional course semester that combined real and virtual dissection. The questionnaire was also offered to near-peer tutor students (tutors). The questionnaire included closed (quantifiable) questions and open-ended questions, attempting to distinguish the advantages and disadvantages of both methods according to anatomical regions.
RESULTS: Twenty students and 6 tutors filled the questionnaire. All students agreed that the virtual dissection table is useful for learning anatomy, though most (10/20 strongly) disagreed that it could replace traditional cadaveric dissection. Real dissection was considered significantly superior to virtual dissection for cardiac, thoracic, lung, and abdominal anatomy and myology (p < 0.05). A preference trend toward the virtual dissection table was observed for central neuroanatomy, peripheral neuroanatomy, and angiology, although this did not reach statistical significance (p > 0.05). A positive correlation was found between the ease of tool appropriation and its perceived pedagogical benefit.
CONCLUSION: Real and virtual dissections are complementary rather than competitive. This study advocates for a tailored pedagogical model where the choice of modality is guided by the specific anatomical region and its inherent technical constraints.
METHODS: A questionnaire was offered to all students in an optional course semester that combined real and virtual dissection. The questionnaire was also offered to near-peer tutor students (tutors). The questionnaire included closed (quantifiable) questions and open-ended questions, attempting to distinguish the advantages and disadvantages of both methods according to anatomical regions.
RESULTS: Twenty students and 6 tutors filled the questionnaire. All students agreed that the virtual dissection table is useful for learning anatomy, though most (10/20 strongly) disagreed that it could replace traditional cadaveric dissection. Real dissection was considered significantly superior to virtual dissection for cardiac, thoracic, lung, and abdominal anatomy and myology (p < 0.05). A preference trend toward the virtual dissection table was observed for central neuroanatomy, peripheral neuroanatomy, and angiology, although this did not reach statistical significance (p > 0.05). A positive correlation was found between the ease of tool appropriation and its perceived pedagogical benefit.
CONCLUSION: Real and virtual dissections are complementary rather than competitive. This study advocates for a tailored pedagogical model where the choice of modality is guided by the specific anatomical region and its inherent technical constraints.