Cadaver preserving methods – is it possible to do anything better?

Abstract

Abstract It is impossible to imagine learning anatomy without properly fixating cadavers. Thanks to accurate preservation techniques, students can differentiate anatomical structures by their sight and touch. The formalin method was first described almost 150 years ago, and as such it may seem primitive, however it is effective and easy to use, which is why it is still in use today. Despite formaldehyde’s bactericidal, fungicidal, and insecticidal properties contact with vapors of embalming solutions such as formalin may have a negative health effect. Skin drying, eczema, allergic contact dermatitis and lowered red blood cells (RBCs) and platelets are only a few symptoms that may occur as a result of spending long periods of time in places where cadavers are stored. Due to formalin’s features, other techniques were invented. Thiel’s method is also well known; after liquid application, tissues remain their natural color as the method is non-irritating and almost odorless. With the rise of technology, more modern methods of cadaver preservation were developed as alternative to formalin, such as the use of N-vinyl-2-pyrrolidone (NVP), which is commonly implemented in Japan and Brazil, and the Modified Larssen solution (MLS), which gives the possibility to reduce formalin concentration without losing the effectiveness of tissue preservation. The aim of this work is to develop an integrated approach to cadaver preservation through the analysis of frequently used preservation techniques. This is a considerable issue because first-year students of medicine and related faculties encounter the preserved material while learning anatomy. In comparison to more modern methods, formalin seems to be the worst choice due to worse joint flexibility, tissue colour and structure and, most importantly, its cancerogenic action.