Dissection videos do not improve anatomy examination scores

Anatomy learning is generally seen as essential to medicine, and exposure to cadavers is generally seen as essential to anatomy learning around the world. Few voices dissenting from these propositions can be identified. This paper aims to consider arguments relating to the use of cadavers in anatomy teaching, and to describe the rationale behind the decision of a new UK medical school not to use cadaveric material. First, the background to use of cadavers in anatomy learning is explored, and some general educational principles are explored. Next, arguments for the use of human cadaveric material are summarised. Then, possible arguments against use of cadavers, including educational principles as well as costs, hazards and practicality, are considered. These are much less well explored in the existing literature. Next, the rationale behind the decision of a new UK medical school not to use cadaveric material is indicated, and the programme of anatomy teaching to be employed in the absence of the use of human remains is described. Curriculum design and development, and evaluation procedures, are briefly described. Issues surrounding pathology training by autopsy, and postgraduate training in surgical anatomy, are not addressed in this paper. Evidence relating to the effect on medical learning by students not exposed to cadavers is scant, and plainly opportunities will now arise through our programme to gather such evidence. We anticipate that this discussion paper will contribute to an ongoing debate, in which virtually all previous papers on this topic have concluded that use of cadavers is essential to medical learning.

Anatomy teaching has perhaps the longest history of any component of formalised medical education. In this article we briefly consider the history of dissection, but also review the neglected topic of the history of the use of living anatomy. The current debates about the advantages and disadvantages of cadavers, prosection versus dissection, and the use of living anatomy and radiology instead of cadavers are discussed. Future prospects are considered, along with some of the factors that might inhibit change.

Major national and international critiques of the medical curriculum in the 1980s noted the following significant flaws: (1) over-reliance on learning by rote memory, (2) insufficient exercise in analysis and synthesis/conceptualization, and (3) failure to connect the basic and clinical aspects of training. It was argued that the invention of computers and related imaging techniques called to question the traditional instruction based on the faculty-centered didactic lecture. In the ensuing reform, which adopted case-based, small group, problem-based learning, time allotted to anatomical instruction was severely truncated. Many programs replaced dissection with prosections and computer-based learning. We argue that cadaver dissection is still necessary for (1) establishing the primacy of the patient, (2) apprehension of the multidimensional body, (3) touch-mediated perception of the cadaver/patient, (4) anatomical variability, (5) learning the basic language of medicine, (6) competence in diagnostic imaging, (7) cadaver/patient-centered computer-assisted learning, (8) peer group learning, (9) training for the medical specialties. Cadaver-based anatomical education is a prerequisite of optimal training for the use of biomedical informatics. When connected to dissection, medical informatics can expedite and enhance preparation for a patient-based medical profession. Actual dissection is equally necessary for acquisition of scientific skills and for a communicative, moral, ethical, and humanistic approach to patient care. Anat Rec (New Anat) 269:20-32, 2002. Copyright 2002 Wiley-Liss, Inc.