Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 14, 2026
Exploring Deep Space - Uncovering the Anatomy of Periventricular Structures to Reveal the Lateral Ventricles of the Human Brain
Published on: October 22, 2017
What Counts as Educational Innovation in Clinical Anatomy?
Juan A Sanchis-Gimeno1, Mathis Orellana-Donoso2, Juan José Valenzuela-Fuenzalida3,4
1GIAVAL Research Group, Department of Anatomy and Human Embryology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain.
None:
Clinical anatomy has become a prominent setting for educational innovation because it links anatomical science with diagnostic imaging, procedural practice, surgery, simulation, and patient safety. However, the term innovation is used inconsistently. In PubMed-indexed literature from January 2016 through 28 June 2026, it is frequently applied to augmented, virtual, and mixed reality, 3D printing, virtual dissection tables, ultrasound, artificial intelligence, flipped classrooms, and case-based clinical integration. The central problem is that innovation often refers to novelty of medium rather than to the clinical accountability of learning. This critical narrative review synthesized PubMed-indexed English-language literature published from January 2016 through 28 June 2026 to examine what should count as educational innovation in clinical anatomy and to distinguish meaningful innovation from technological enthusiasm, curricular cosmetic change, or assessment-light experimentation. Included sources addressed human anatomy education with an explicit clinical, diagnostic, imaging, procedural, or health-professional orientation. The literature clusters around seven overlapping domains: collaborative definitions of clinical anatomy, cadaver-imaging integration, 3D printing and pathoanatomical modeling, extended reality, artificial intelligence, ultrasound and living anatomy, and flipped or case-based curricular redesign. Across these areas, innovations are often praised for engagement, visualization, or institutional modernity even when evidence for durable clinical transfer remains limited. Conversely, cadaveric dissection may be genuinely innovative when redesigned around clinical reasoning, imaging correlation, anatomical variation, and procedural safety. Educational innovation in clinical anatomy should count only when it makes anatomical learning more clinically usable, assessable, ethically defensible, and transferable. Technology may support that aim, but it does not define it.
