Dissections or prosections: Which method has a better impact on sustainable gross anatomy knowledge?

Background Assessing the level of knowledge of anatomy of undergraduate students four years after their primary anatomy training will give a better indication as to which system of teaching is more effective. We aimed to ascertain which method was more effective at establishing a core of anatomy knowledge that could be recalled after a considerable amount of time. Methods We tested two groups of medical students in their final year on the key concepts of gross anatomy using a question paper that included true-false type questions and identification of anatomical line diagrams. These two batches of students followed a dissection-based curriculum and a newly introduced prosections-based curriculum at the beginning of their medical education. The prosections- based curriculum brought with it a reduction in the in-class teaching and learning activities when compared to the old curriculum. This would in turn reflect how much anatomy knowledge one would possess when they start to practise medicine as a newly qualified doctor and also embark on a postgraduate training programme. The two groups were subjected without prior warning to a question paper that had six questions, each with five true-false statements and four questions on identification and labelling of anatomical line diagrams. Results There was no statistically significant difference in the marks obtained for the true-false type questions between the two groups (p=0.08), but the prosections group obtained higher marks for the diagram identification questions (p=0.02). Conclusion A prosection-based curriculum when compared to a dissection-based curriculum was equally effective at establishing a core of gross anatomy knowledge.