Innovations in Medical Education in Gastrointestinal Surgery Using Interactive Anatomical Tables

The introduction of digital technologies into the learning process for medical university students represents a new paradigm in medical education since high level of criteria for assessing the quality of learning of a medical student require the application of modern technologies in training fundamental disciplines and, in particular, anatomy. Thanks to virtual technologies, conditions are created for modeling and integrating the student into conditions close to real ones, which increases the interest and involvement of students in the educational process and, as a result, a subjective improvement in the process of assimilation of the material. Traditional education based on dissection materials cannot fully provide for the massive training of students, as biological materials cannot be restored or preserved and are quickly damaged. 3D models are devoid of these limitations.

Aim: to evaluate the effectiveness of digital dissection in the educational trajectory of clinical anatomy using interactive anatomical tables and the need of students for the active use of these aids.

Materials and methods. Four groups of students were formed: three groups were studying the material using various anatomical tables and one group used the traditional method. To control the effectiveness of the educational process, before the start of training, entrance testing was conducted in all groups. At the end of classes on individual topics, participants completed exit testing, as well as a questionnaire.

Results. The analysis of learning outcomes shows a significantly higher level of absorption of the material among students in groups where 3D anatomical models were used during classes. This indicates that students’ subjective experience of the learning process has improved due to their increased involvement in the class and their interest in innovative teaching methods.

Conclusion. We plan to study learning outcomes in more detail to identify any differences in the formation of general and professional competencies among students. This information will help us make informed decisions about the widespread use of anatomical models in educational practice.

1. Bhat G.M., Bhat I.H., Shahdad S., Rashid S., Khan M.A., Patloo A.A. Analysis of feasibility and acceptability of an e-learning module in anatomy. Anat Sci Educ. 2022;15(2):376–91. DOI: 10.1002/ase.2096

2. Guy R., Byrne B., Dobos M. Optional anatomy and physiology e-learning resources: Student access, learning approaches, and academic outcomes. Adv Physiol Educ. 2018;42(1):43–9. DOI: 10.1152/advan.00007.2017

3. Ivanova N.V., Murashov O.V., Prokof’ev M.S. Use of “Anatomage table” in the study of variant anatomy. Vestnik of Novgorod State University. 2020;4(120):13–6. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.34680/2076-8052.2020.4(120).13-16

4. Iskakova M.K., Erezhepova G.N. Using the Pirogov interactive ta ble in teaching dental. Actual Problems of Theoreti cal and Clinical Medicine. 2022;4:51–5. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.24412/2790-1289-2022-4-5155

5. Abarca-Olivas J., González-López P., Fernández-Cornejo V., Verdú-Martínez I., Martorell-Llobregat C., Baldoncini M., et al. 3D stereoscopic view in neurosurgical anatomy: Compilation of basic methods. World Neurosurg. 2022;163:e593–609. DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2022.04.036

6. Vasil’ev Y.L., Dydykin S.S., Kashtanov A.D., Molotok E.V., Lyakisheva A.A., Kytko O.V., et al. A comparative analysis of lecturers’ satisfaction with Anatomage and Pirogov virtual dissection tables during clinical and topographic anatomy courses in Russian universities. Anat Sci Educ. 2023;16(2):196–208. DOI: 10.1002/ase.2248

7. Vasil’ev Yu.L., Ivanov A.A., Smi lyk I.M., Kashtanov A.D., Kytko O.V. Dissection courses as a way to change the paradigm of modern comprehensive dental education. Clinical Stomatology. 2021;24(2):130–4. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.37988/1811-153X_2021_2_130

8. Ghosh S.K. Cadaveric dissection as an educational tool for anatomical sciences in the 21st century. Anat Sci Educ. 2017;10(3):286–99. DOI: 10.1002/ase.1649

9. Lochner L., Wieser H., Waldboth S., Mischo-Kelling M. Combining traditional anatomy lectures with e-learning activities: How do students perceive their learning experience? Int J Med Educ. 2016;7:69–74. DOI: 10.5116/ijme.56b5.0369

10. Khan J., Baatjes K.J., Layman-Lemphane J.I., Correia J. Online anatomy education during the COVID-19 pandemic: Opinions of medical, speech therapy, and BSc Anatomy students. Anat Sci Educ. 2023;16(5):892–906. DOI: 10.1002/ase.2271

11. Saurabh M.K., Patel T., Bhabhor P., Patel P., Kumar S. Students’ perception on online teaching and learning during COVID-19 pandemic in medical education. Maedica (Bucur). 2021;16(3):439–44. DOI: 10.26574/maedica.2021.16.3.439

12. Yin S., Cai X., Wang Z., Zhang Y., Luo S., Ma J. Impact of gamification elements on user satisfaction in health and fitness applications: A comprehensive approach based on the Kano model. Comput Human Behav. 2022;128:107106. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2021.107106

13. van Gaalen A.E.J., Brouwer J., Schönrock-Adema J., Bouwkamp-Timmer T., Jaarsma A.D.C., Georgiadis J.R. Gamification of health professions education: A systematic review. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2021;26(2):683–711. DOI: 10.1007/s10459-020-10000-3

14. Ruiz J.G., Mintzer M.J., Leipzig R.M. The impact of E-learning in medical education. Acad Med. 2006;81(3):207– 12. DOI: 10.1097/00001888-200603000-00002

15. Alasmari W.A. Medical students’ feedback of applying the virtual dissection table (Anatomage) in learning anatomy: A cross-sectional descriptive study. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2021;12:1303–7. DOI: 10.2147/AMEP.S324520

16. Royer D.F., Kessler R., Stowell J.R. Evaluation of an innovative hands-on anatomy-centered ultrasound curriculum to supplement graduate gross anatomy education. Anat Sci Educ. 2017;10(4):348–62. DOI: 10.1002/ase.1670

17. Abdulrahman K.A.B., Jumaa M.I., Hanafy S.M., Elkordy E.A., Arafa M.A., Ahmad T., et al. Students’ perceptions and attitudes after exposure to three different instructional strategies in applied anatomy. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2021;12:607–12. DOI: 10.2147/AMEP.S310147

18. Jason D., Trammell A., Grant T. Informationists and nurse educators partner to integrate a virtual dissection table into a nursing curriculum. Med Ref Serv Q. 2021;40(4):437– 47. DOI: 10.1080/02763869.2021.1987812

19. Shi D., Walline J.H., Liu J., Yu X., Xu J., Song P.P., et al. An exploratory study of Sectra Table visualization improves the effectiveness of emergency bedside echocardiography training. J Ultrasound Med. 2019;38(2):363–70. DOI: 10.1002/JUM.14696

20. Kavvadia E.M., Katsoula I., Angelis S., Filippou D., Kavvadia E.M., Katsoula I., et al. The Anatomage table: A promising alternative in anatomy education. Cureus. 2023;15(8):e43047. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.43047

21. Shevchenko Yu.A., Kitaev V.M. Pirogov’s “Ice anatomy” — a prototype of modern radiological imaging. Pirogov Russian Journal of Surgery. 2010;9:4–8. (In Russ.).

22. Fomin N.F. Contribution of N.I. Pirogov to operative surgery and topographi cal anatomy. Bulletin of Pirogov National Medical & Surgical Center. 2020;15(3–1):16–20. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.25881/BPNMSC.2020.94.89.003

23. Dydykin S.S., Kagan I.I. Once again about the important and painful problem (body donation — when?). Russian Journal of Operative Surgery and Clinical Anatomy. 2020;4(3):4–5. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.17116/operhirurg202040314

24. Wang J., Li W., Dun A., Zhong N., Ye Z. 3D visualization technology for learning human anatomy among medical students and residents: A metaand regression analysis. BMC Med Educ. 2024;24(1):461. DOI: 10.1186/s12909024-05403-4

25. Cappellen van Walsum A.V., Henssen D.J.H.A. E-learn ing three-dimensional anatomy of the brainstem: Impact of different microscopy techniques and spatial ability. Anat Sci Educ. 2022;15(2):317–29. DOI: 10.1002/ase.2056

26. Allen L.K., Eagleson R., de Ribaupierre S. Evaluation of an online three-dimensional interactive resource for undergraduate neuroanatomy education. Anat Sci Educ. 2016;9(5):431–9. DOI: 10.1002/ase.1604

27. Jayakumar N., Brunckhorst O., Dasgupta P., Khan M.S., Ahmed K. E-learning in surgical education: A systematic review. J Surg Educ. 2015;72(6):1145–57. DOI: 10.1016/J.JSURG.2015.05.008

28. Van Nuland S.E., Rogers K.A. The anatomy of E-Learning tools: Does software usability influence learning outcomes? Anat Sci Educ. 2016;9(4):378–90. DOI: 10.1002/ase.1589

29. Morichon A., Dannhoff G., Barantin L., Destrieux C., Maldonado I.L. Doing more with less: Realistic stereoscopic three-dimensional anatomical modeling from smartphone photogrammetry. Anat Sci Educ. 2024;17(4):864– 77. DOI: 10.1002/ase.2402

30. Ail G., Freer F., Chan C.S., Jones M., Broad J., Canale G.P., et al. A comparison of virtual reality anatomy models to prosections in station-based anatomy teaching. Anat Sci Educ. 2024;17(4):763–9. DOI: 10.1002/ase.2419

31. Kashtanov A., Molotok E., Yavorovskiy A., Boyar kov A., Vasil'ev Y., Alsaegh A., et al. A comparative cross-sectional study assessing the psycho-emotion al state of intensive care units' physicians and nurs es of COVID-19 hospitals of a Russian metropolis. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(3):1828. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19031828

32. Nikityuk D.B., Kagan I.I., Dydykin S.S., Zadnipryany I.V., Vasil’ev Y.L., Kapitonova M.Y. About the second edition of the International Anatomical Terminology and its Russian equivalent. Russian Journal of Operative Surgery and Clinical Anatomy. 2022;6(3):56–67. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.17116/operhirurg2022603156

33. Seidlein A.H., Bettin H., Franikowski P., Salloch S. Gamified E-learning in medical terminology: The TERMInator tool. BMC Med Educ. 2020;20(1):284. DOI: 10.1186/s12909-020-02204-3