Learning human anatomy: by dissection or from prosections?

Two matched groups of first-year preclinical medical students studied the gross anatomy of the lower limb by different methods. One group dissected in the traditional manner (as in the existing curriculum) while the other worked according to an experimental programme which excluded dissection by students. Preparatory study guides were supplied to the experimental group and each of their practical classes on soft tissues began with a priming session at which the structures to be encountered were introduced. The instructor then demonstrated these structures to the group on a prosected wet specimen and bones. Thereafter, the students were allowed to handle and discuss the specimens without staff supervision. At the end of the programme, both groups submitted to a 300-item two-choice paper and a practical test. A debriefing questionnaire was also completed by the experimental group. In both tests, the experimental group performed better than the traditional group and the difference was statistically significant (P less than 0.05) in the theory paper. Further, the experimental programme was completed in about 74% of the time taken by the traditional programme. All the participants commented positively on the experimental programme and expressed the opinion that it had helped them understand the lower limb better than dissection had done for the upper limb. These results suggest that working from prosections is a very effective way of learning human gross anatomy. Such a programme is worthy of consideration by departments having to contend with unfavourable student:cadaver ratios and curtailed teaching time.