Search

Introduction: The objective of the present study, of quantitative analytical experimental type, to compare and evaluate the design of the anatomical structures in the first year students of the medical career, using two different models of teachings (3D vs cadaver) and thus determine that It is more effective and provides better results. Our hypothesis suggests that recognition and learning is superior using corpses. Materials and methods: The project was carried out in the anatomy laboratory with the participation of the 1st year students of the medical career, during 2 different days. The students who took the course or who had previous knowledge were excluded from the analysis. On the first day the students were randomly divided into four groups. In groups A and B (21 students in total) the teaching was with corpses while in groups C and D (23 students in total) the same was done with 3D models based on the web, projected on Televisors 40 ". Each group presented a teacher in charge. The specific topics dictated during 2 hours referred to the skeletal muscle system of the upper limb. On the second day issues related to the lower limb were dictated. On this last day the distribution of students differs: those students who were part of group A and B (cadaveric) on the first day, were reassigned to teaching with 3D models based on the web, and in the same way was done with Groups C and D that received teaching with corpses. At the end of each teaching day, the four groups were given the same multiple choice evaluation, which consisted in recognizing 10 (ten) anatomical structures in 5 photographs of corpses. Results: Comparing the results of the anatomical exams using Chi square and Student's T we can affirm that there is a statistically significant difference between both groups: cadaver vs 3D. The average of notes of the cadaverous groups were respectively 7.47% (1st day) and 6.82% (2nd day); on the other hand, for the 3D groups they were 4.81% (1st day) and 4.71% (2nd day). With respect to the percentages of approved: in cadaver were 86% (1st day) and 87% (2nd day); and in 3D of 32% (1st day) and 38% (2nd day). Conclusion: The methodology of teaching corpses is superior to that carried out with 3D models to recognize and learn anatomical structures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]