Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 16, 2026
Exploring Deep Space - Uncovering the Anatomy of Periventricular Structures to Reveal the Lateral Ventricles of the Human Brain
Published on: October 22, 2017
Dissection in the 21st century: virtual tables versus traditional methods and their influence on medical students'
Teodora Telecan1,2, Roxana-Denisa Capraș3, Gabriela Adriana Filip1
1Department of Anatomy and Embryology, "Iuliu Hațieganu" University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Cluj-Napoca, 400012, Romania.
Background:
Virtual dissection tables (VDTs) have emerged as innovative tools in anatomy education, offering interactive, three-dimensional visualization of anatomical structures. However, their performance in conjunction with traditional teaching methods needs to be further analyzed and synthesized. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness, student satisfaction and perceived utility of VDTs compared to cadaveric dissection, lectures, and textbook-based learning.
Methods:
A systematic search of literature identified 22 eligible studies involving students in medicine and related healthcare professions. Studies were analyzed in terms of design, cohort characteristics, educational outcomes, and anatomical content coverage. VDTs evaluated included commercial platforms such as Anatomage, Spectra, VH Dissector, and institutional in-house systems.
Results:
VDT use was associated with improved academic performance in 86% of studies, with score increases ranging from 8 to 31% over traditional teaching methods. The greatest improvements were observed in musculoskeletal And neuroanatomy modules. Student satisfaction ranged from 64 to 95%, with the majority citing improved spatial understanding, engagement, And repeatability. However, preference for VDT-exclusive learning remained low, reported by only 2.4-30.2% of students. Most participants favored a hybrid approach combining VDTs with cadaver-based instruction. Despite these benefits, limitations included high implementation costs (up to $200,000 USD), limited access due to device scarcity, lack of tactile feedback, and significant variation in assessment methods and anatomical content. Additionally, no study conducted a direct comparison between various VDT platforms, nor between commercial and in-house systems.
Conclusion:
VDTs represent a valuable complement to traditional anatomy education, enhancing learning outcomes and student engagement across a range of healthcare disciplines. However, their full potential is best realized when used as part of a multimodal curriculum that retains cadaveric dissection. Further research is needed to assess long-term outcomes, clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness, and to compare different VDT systems.
