The Efficacy of Utilizing the Anatomage Table as a Supplementary Educational Resource in Osteology Instruction for...

Introduction Osteology is the detailed study of the structure of the bones. This study assesses the effectiveness of employing the 3D visualization tool Anatomage table as a learning adjunct to osteology training in first-year medical students by post-test evaluations related to the humerus, radius, and ulna bones. Method This study was conducted in first-year medical graduate students in the Department of Anatomy, All India Institute of Medical Science (AIIMS), Raipur, India. Students included in the study were divided into two groups by simple random sampling after voluntary consent. The study group students, Group A, were taught osteology by traditional teaching and visualizing bone with a tool, an Anatomage table. The control group (Group B) is for traditional teaching. The study involved demonstrating each group's humerus, radius, and ulna bones, with sessions lasting 60 minutes. After each topic, a post-test was administered. A total of 94 students for the test for the humerus bone, 98 students for the radius bones, and 85 students for the ulna bones responded to the post-test conducted after sessions. Descriptive statistics were assessed using mean and standard deviation. Independent sample t-tests compare the mean marks obtained post-test by two groups of students. Results The results indicated that students in Group A scored higher mean marks than their counterparts in Group B across all three bone post-tests, but the significance of the differences varied. For humerus, mean marks obtained by students of Group A (Anatomage table teaching) (mean±SD: 4.00± 1.10) were higher than those of Group B (traditional teaching) (mean±SD: 3.63± 1.36). Still, we do not observe a statistically significant difference in mean marks of students of Group A vs. students of Group B (P=0.166, P>0.05). For radius, we observe statistically higher mean marks among students of Group A (mean±SD: 3.72±0.944) compared to students of Group B (mean±SD: 3.22±1.08) (P=0.021, P<0.05). Similarly, for ulna, we observe higher mean marks for Group A (mean±SD: 3.18.00±1.55) as compared to Group B (mean±SD: 3.13±1.21) but do not observe a statistically significant difference in mean marks of students of Group A vs. students of Group B (P=0.875, P>.05). Conclusion Including the Anatomage table for visualization during osteology sessions yielded benefits for all three sessions. Future studies could employ more extensive and diverse samples to validate the findings further and incorporate qualitative methods to gain insights into students' perceptions of both teaching methods.