Dissect or not to dissect? Easy solution

Abstract

Throughout the recorded past (from Edwin Smith Surgical Papyrus) anatomy education did not experience dramatic changes. Practically until the last 5–10 years we were using only a text and a cadaver. Only did generation Z start to experience an intervention of AI and VR in our dissection rooms and lecture halls. Literature research exhibits convincing evidence of the positive impact of these new pedagogical tools on student’s success and overall performance (Freeman et al. 2014; Michael 2006). Some new methods of active learning, however, have been proven to be more effective than others. Lombardi et al. (2014) observed that students who used plastic models, rather than prosected specimens or virtual dissections, scored considerably higher on both initial and follow‐up exams despite student perceptions that the different forms of actual dissections were of more value. Fancovicova et al. (2014) observed that students who had admittance to multiple forms of active learning performed at a higher level than students who had access to only one form (including dissection). Herur et al. (2011) reported that students who utilized multiple forms of active learning had significantly higher levels of retention at 15 and 30 days after the class than those who learned by passive means.There is a perception that dissection continues to be recommended as the golden standard of anatomical education. Our presentation will present our experience of exploration of the possibilities to improve student’s success through the creation of a technologically advanced anatomy classroom that allows the learning anatomy of living human beings, not only cadavers. First‐time students are able to hold their own 3D printed organs during lab exercises. We can observe anatomical variations and their effects on living specimens in real time. At the same time, traditional cadaver dissections allow us to appreciate the complexity of the human body.