Search

Introduction: Ultrasonography allows high-resolution visualisation of the peripheral nerves for quantitative and qualitative analyses. We report cross-sectional area values (quantitative measure) and echo intensity values (qualitative measure) for 46 peripheral nerve sites in upper and lower extremities in cadaveric specimens., Objective: To determine cross-sectional area values and echo intensity values of peripheral nerves of upper and lower extremities at 46 nerve sites., Methods: Nerve measurements were obtained using electronic callipers and ultrasonography for linear dimension and cross-sectional area measurements, respectively, in six cadaveric specimens for 46 peripheral nerve sites. Ultrasound images were further analysed to estimate echo intensity percentage values for 46 nerves., Results: We present normal cross-sectional area values of various nerves of upper and lower extremities with their respective echo intensity values. Calculated cross-sectional area values from linear dimensions did not match the measured cross-sectional area values via trace method., Conclusion: Cross-sectional area values (quantitative measure) and echo intensity values (qualitative measure) for 46 peripheral nerve sites in upper and lower extremities in cadaveric specimens are presented. The estimation of cross-sectional area via linear measurement is not a good approximation of the cross-sectional area (cross-sectional area measured by trace method on ultrasound image)., Competing Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article., (© The Author(s) 2022.)

Purpose: Physical therapy education programs use preadmission factors to admit qualified applicants. These factors have limited ability to predict academic outcomes and 5% of enrolled students do not graduate. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether early assessment scores in a Human Gross Anatomy course can be used to identify students at greater risk of academic difficulty., Methods: This is a retrospective analysis of data from 272 students enrolled in a Doctor of Physical Therapy program 2011-2013 and 2015-2019. Independent variables included scores on assessments in a Human Gross Anatomy course. Dependent variables included course score and first-year GPA. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated to evaluate each assessment's ability to differentiate between students who did and did not have academic difficulty and determine cutoff scores., Results: 4% and 11% of students were found to have academic difficulty in the course and the program, respectively. Practical Exam #2 (AUC 0.95, 95% CI 0.89-1.00, p<0.001) best differentiated between students who did and did not have academic difficulty. The calculated cutoff score of 61.5% had the same sensitivity (90.91%) and greater specificity (91.95%) than the standard passing score of the program of (sensitivity 90.91%, specificity 72.41%). Scoring < 61.5% on Practical Exam #2 increased the odds of academic difficulty in the course and first year of the program., Conclusions: This study demonstrated a method that could be used to identify students at greater risk of academic difficulty before submission of any course grades. Using this evidence-based approach can benefit students and programs.

The most effective method to teach gross anatomy is largely unknown. This study examined two teaching methods utilized in a physical therapy and occupational therapy gross anatomy course, (1) alternating dissection with peer teaching every other laboratory session and (2) faculty demonstrations during laboratory sessions. Student (n = 57) subgroup (A or B) academic performance was determined using written, laboratory practical, and palpation practical examinations. Subgroup A performed significantly better on laboratory practical examination questions pertaining to dissected, in comparison to peer-taught structures (67.1% vs. 60.2%, P = 0.008). Subgroup B performed significantly better on laboratory practical examination questions pertaining to peer-taught, in comparison to dissected structures (64.1% vs. 57.9%, P = 0.001). When Subgroup A was compared to Subgroup B, there were no statistically significant differences on laboratory practical examination question types, whether the subgroup learned the structure through dissection or peer teaching. Based on within and between subgroup comparisons, faculty demonstrations had no effect on written, laboratory practical, or palpation practical examination scores. Although limited, data suggest that the student roles when alternating dissection with peer teaching every other laboratory session appear to be equally effective for learning gross anatomy. The benefits of this method include decreased student/faculty ratio in laboratory sessions and increased time for independent study. Faculty demonstrations during laboratory sessions do not seem to improve student academic performance., (© 2018 American Association of Anatomists.)