SpringerLink
Log in

A prosection-based surgical anatomy training session that improves medical student anatomical knowledge and confidence on the surgery clerkship

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Global Surgical Education - Journal of the Association for Surgical Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purposes

Evaluate the effect of a 4-h prosection-based surgical anatomy training session on medical student anatomical knowledge and confidence. Compare the effect of the training between two student cohorts.

Methods

Two cohorts participated in the study. “Legacy” students received a 91-h dissection-based anatomy course in their pre-clinical curriculum. “NextGen” students received 14 h of pre-clinical anatomy training without dissection. Both cohorts participated in the surgical anatomy training session during their surgery clerkship. The session consisting of six stations: anterior abdominal wall, hepatobiliary, stomach/small intestine, colon/rectum, neck/breast, and cardiothoracic. Pre- and post-session tests assessed student confidence in and knowledge of surgical anatomy.

Results

Two hundred and ninety four medical students completed the anatomy training. Overall scores increased 21% from pre-test (50 ± 19%) to post-test (71 ± 17%, p < 0.001). NextGen students scored lower than Legacy medical students on both the pre-test (44 ± 17% vs. 58 ± 20%, p < 0.001) and post-test (65 ± 16% vs. 81 ± 15%, p < 0.001). Student’s confidence in their understanding of general surgical anatomy improved from a Likert score of 2 [1–3] pre-session to 3 [2–4] post-session, p < 0.001. Compared to Legacy Students, NextGen students reported lower confidence pre-session (1 [1–2] vs. 3 [2–4], p < 0.001) and post-session (3 [2–4] vs. 4 [4–4], p < 0.001).

Conclusions

This innovative prosection-based surgical anatomy teaching model demonstrates an effective method to improve medical student knowledge of, and confidence in, surgical anatomy. However, the difference in performance between the two student cohorts demonstrates that prosection-based teaching cannot replace or fully compensate for a pre-clinical, dissection-based anatomy curriculum.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Germany)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Drake RL, McBride JM, Pawlina W. An update on the status of anatomical sciences education in United States medical schools. Anat Sci Educ. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. McBride JM, Drake RL. National survey on anatomical sciences in medical education. Anat Sci Educ. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1760.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Brooks WS, et al. Integration of gross anatomy in an organ system-based medical curriculum: strategies and challenges. Anat Sci Educ. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Estai M, Bunt S. Best teaching practices in anatomy education: a critical review. Ann Anat. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aanat.2016.02.010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Hu M, Wattchow D, de Fontgalland D. From ancient to avant-garde: a review of traditional and modern multimodal approaches to surgical anatomy education. ANZ J Surg. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1111/ans.14189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Mitchell R, Batty L. Undergraduate perspectives on the teaching and learning of anatomy. ANZ J Surg. 2009. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1445-2197.2008.04826.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Insull PJ, Kejriwal R, Blyth P. Surgical inclination and anatomy teaching at the University of Auckland. ANZ J Surg. 2006. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1445-2197.2006.03942.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Ahmad K, et al. Addressing the failures of undergraduate anatomy education: dissecting the issue and innovating a solution. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2020.12.024.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Fillmore EP, et al. Understanding the current anatomical competence landscape: comparing perceptions of program directors, residents, and fourth-year medical students. Anat Sci Educ. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Sheikh AH, et al. Cadaveric anatomy in the future of medical education: what is the surgeons view? Anat Sci Educ. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Mechaber AJ, et al. University of Miami Leonard M. Miller School of Medicine. Acad Med. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000003459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Harris PA, et al. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Stroumsa D, et al. The power and limits of classification—a 32-year-old man with abdominal pain. N Engl J Med. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1811491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Flack N, Nicholson HD. What do medical students learn from dissection? Anat Sci Educ. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1758.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Ghosh SK. Cadaveric dissection as an educational tool for anatomical sciences in the 21st century. Anat Sci Educ. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1649.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. McLachlan JC, Patten D. Anatomy teaching: ghosts of the past, present and future. Med Educ. 2006. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02401.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Bockers A, et al. The gross anatomy course: an analysis of its importance. Anat Sci Educ. 2010. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Are C, et al. An experience in surgical anatomy to provide first-year medical students with an early exposure to general surgery: a pilot study. J Surg Educ. 2009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2009.04.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Ferlauto HR, et al. A novel model for a student-led surgical anatomy seminar. J Surg Educ. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2020.07.029.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hammer N, et al. Teaching surgical exposures to undergraduate medical students: an integration concept for anatomical and surgical education. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-015-2217-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Bockers A, et al. Ready for the OR?—Clinical anatomy and basic surgical skills for students in their preclinical education. GMS Z Med Ausbild. 2011. https://doi.org/10.3205/zma000757.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Haubert LM, Jones K, Moffatt-Bruce SD. Surgical clinical correlates in anatomy: design and implementation of a first-year medical school program. Anat Sci Educ. 2009. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Ozcan S, et al. Impact of cadaveric surgical anatomy training on urology residents knowledge: a preliminary study. Turk J Urol. 2015. https://doi.org/10.5152/tud.2015.87422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Sharma G, et al. A cadaveric procedural anatomy course enhances operative competence. J Surg Res. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2015.09.037.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Farey JE, et al. Predictors of confidence in anatomy knowledge for work as a junior doctor: a national survey of Australian medical students. BMC Med Educ. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-018-1280-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Orsbon CP, Kaiser RS, Ross CF. Physician opinions about an anatomy core curriculum: a case for medical imaging and vertical integration. Anat Sci Educ. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Bergman EM, van der Vleuten CP, Scherpbier AJ. Why don’t they know enough about anatomy? A narrative review. Med Teach. 2011. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2010.536276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Hagan EA, Jaffe BM. Effect of curriculum changes on student performance during general surgical clerkship. J Surg Educ. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2017.08.020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Bockers A, Mayer C, Bockers TM. Does learning in clinical context in anatomical sciences improve examination results, learning motivation, or learning orientation? Anat Sci Educ. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Carmichael H, et al. “Bedside Anatomy”: a tool to contextualize learning and introduce surgical careers. J Surg Res. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2019.12.015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Nutt J, et al. Cadaveric surgery: a novel approach to teaching clinical anatomy. Clin Teach. 2012. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-498X.2012.00536.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Acker R, et al. Eyes of the beholders: first-year medical students’ perceptions of surgeons and the field of surgery. Am J Surg. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2021.10.019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. McKinley SK, et al. Medical students’ perceptions and motivations prior to their surgery clerkship. Am J Surg. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2019.01.010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. McKinley SK, et al. Enhancing the formal preclinical curriculum to improve medical student perception of surgery. J Surg Educ. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2020.02.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Naylor RA, Reisch JS, Valentine RJ. Do student perceptions of surgeons change during medical school? A longitudinal analysis during a 4-year curriculum. J Am Coll Surg. 2010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2009.12.016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Hill EJR, et al. Can I cut it? Medical students’ perceptions of surgeons and surgical careers. Am J Surg. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2014.04.016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Kozar RA, et al. Brief intervention by surgeons can influence students toward a career in surgery. J Surg Res. 2003. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-4804(03)00104-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Kozar RA, et al. Preclinical students: who are surgeons? J Surg Res. 2004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2004.03.024.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Are C, et al. The influence of surgical demonstrations during an anatomy course on the perceptions of first-year medical students toward surgeons and a surgical career. J Surg Educ. 2010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2010.07.016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Thank you to Brandon Rose, MD, MPH (TheCodingDocs.com) for his help in using RStudio to create the figures for this project. This project would not have been possible without the support of the anatomy faculty at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine. A special thank you to Shawn Hunt PhD., Bryon Smith DPT., and the many student volunteers that helped to prosect for and teach during each of the anatomy training sessions. The authors are grateful to those altruistic individuals who donated their bodies to the State of Florida Anatomical Board at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine (sofab.med.miami.edu). These individuals have helped to educate over 400 medical students in the intricacies of human anatomy and the professional practice of medicine, and without their selfless donation, this research would not have been possible.

Funding

No funding was received to assist with the preparation of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Broward Health Medical Center, Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA

    Allison J. Draper

  2. DeWitt Daughtry Family Department of Surgery, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA

    Rebecca A. Saberi, Carlos T. Huerta, Vanessa W. Hui, Chad M. Thorson, Steven E. Rodgers & Laurence R. Sands

  3. University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA

    Emily D. Ramos

  4. Cell Biology Department, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA

    Douglas C. Broadfield

Authors
  1. Allison J. Draper
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rebecca A. Saberi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Carlos T. Huerta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Emily D. Ramos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Vanessa W. Hui
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Chad M. Thorson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Steven E. Rodgers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Douglas C. Broadfield
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Laurence R. Sands
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Material preparation, data collection, and analysis were performed by AJD, RAS, and CTH. Anatomical illustrations were drawn by EDR. The manuscript was written by AJD. All the authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Allison J. Draper.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all the authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Ethics approval

This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. This study was reviewed and deemed exempt by the University of Miami Institutional Review Board as the research was conducted in an established educational setting that involved normal educational practices that are not likely to adversely impact students’ opportunity to learn required educational content.

Consent to participate

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (PDF 13322 kb)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Draper, A.J., Saberi, R.A., Huerta, C.T. et al. A prosection-based surgical anatomy training session that improves medical student anatomical knowledge and confidence on the surgery clerkship. Global Surg Educ 1, 68 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s44186-022-00074-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s44186-022-00074-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation