Loading…

Mixed Reality Anatomy Using Microsoft HoloLens and Cadaveric Dissection: A Comparative Effectiveness Study

Purpose As the amount of curricular material required of medical students increases, less time is available for anatomy; thus, methods to teach anatomy more efficiently and effectively are necessary. In this randomized controlled trial, we looked at the effectiveness of a mixed reality (MR) device t...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Medical science educator 2020-03, Vol.30 (1), p.173-178
Main Authors: Stojanovska, M., Tingle, G., Tan, L., Ulrey, L., Simonson-Shick, S., Mlakar, J., Eastman, H., Gotschall, R., Boscia, A., Enterline, R., Henninger, E., Herrmann, K. A., Simpson, S. W., Griswold, M. A., Wish-Baratz, S.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Purpose As the amount of curricular material required of medical students increases, less time is available for anatomy; thus, methods to teach anatomy more efficiently and effectively are necessary. In this randomized controlled trial, we looked at the effectiveness of a mixed reality (MR) device to teach musculoskeletal anatomy to medical students compared with traditional cadaveric dissection. Method Participating students were divided into three cohorts. Cohort 1 first studied upper limb anatomy in MR followed by lower limb anatomy through cadaveric dissection. Cohort 2 studied upper limb anatomy with cadaveric dissection followed by lower limb anatomy in MR. After the six sessions, a third cohort of 33 students who never received any teaching in MR was recruited to participate in the final practical exams as a control group. All 64 students completed two practical exams with equivalent content, one in the cadaver lab and one using MR. Results The average scores were 73.8% + 12.3 on the cadaver exam and 74.2% + 13.0 in MR. There is no statistical difference between these scores ( p > 0.05). A correlation was found between the MR practical exam and cadaver practical exam scores ( r = 0.74, p < 0.01) across all students. Conclusions To our knowledge, this study marks the first time that MR was compared with traditional anatomy learning modalities in a multi-session, group course. Our results clearly indicate that medical students, regardless of the study modality, performed similarly on the MR and the cadaver practical exams.
ISSN:2156-8650
2156-8650
DOI:10.1007/s40670-019-00834-x