Virtual Reality as an Alternative to Conventional Anatomy Teaching: A Systematic Review of Randomised Controlled...

Traditional anatomy education, anchored in cadaveric dissection and two-dimensional (2D) resources, faces mounting pressure from reduced curricular hours, educator shortages, and rising costs. Virtual reality (VR) offers an immersive and repeatable alternative; however, its objective efficacy relative to established methods remains debated. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of VR-based instruction versus conventional teaching in undergraduate anatomy education, with a particular focus on knowledge acquisition, long-term retention, and learner satisfaction. A systematic review was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed/MEDLINE (Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched from inception to August 2024. Eligibility was restricted to randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving undergraduate medical students. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool. Eight RCTs (n ≈ 480 participants) were included. VR interventions consistently matched or exceeded traditional methods in immediate knowledge acquisition, with the most pronounced benefits observed in spatially complex anatomical domains. VR was seen to be non-inferior at five to nine days and eight weeks, and superior at four months (p < 0.001), though the latter finding derives from an add-on design in which both groups received conventional teaching. The non-inferiority of immersive VR versus cadaveric bone models in skeletal anatomy was also seen. Evidence quality was rated moderate overall, with performance bias the primary methodological limitation across studies. VR is an effective educational adjuvant that enhances long-term retention in anatomy education and is supported by emerging biometric evidence of reduced extraneous cognitive load. The evidence supports its integration within a blended learning model rather than as a wholesale replacement for cadaveric dissection. Scalability and cost-effectiveness strengthen the case for its adoption in resource-constrained curricula.