Enhancing Cadaveric Prosection Education of Male Urogenital Anatomy with Clinical Vignettes and Problem‐Based Learning (PBL)
Authors: He Yingxin , Antony Thompson , Ravikumaran Nair Rakesh 
Published: May 2022

Introduction

Anatomy education has faced challenges in maintaining a high learning standard in the medical school curriculum. Although approaches including dissection videos and 3D models have been introduced to enhance anatomy education, studies have demonstrated unaffected learning outcomes after their implementation.1 Problem‐based learning (PBL), a stark opposite to the traditional lecture‐style format, focuses on student‐centered learning via application of knowledge to solve problems.2 As it encourages self‐directed, active learning, the incorporation of PBLs with traditional use of prosected cadavers can facilitate better retention of male urogenital anatomy concepts.

Objectives

Incorporating clinical vignettes and PBLs with prosected cadavers will facilitate improved understanding of the male urogenital anatomy compared with using only prosected cadavers.

Methods

1st year medical students at Florida International University HWCOM class of 2025 were put into 16 groups of approximately 7 to 10 students (n=137) rotating through four 25‐minutes stations. One station was facilitated by a 4th year medical student teaching assistant (TA), using clinical vignettes and PBLs combined with a prosected cadaver to teach male urogenital anatomy. Students also rotated at three other stations (before or after) containing radiologic imaging, self‐study, and ureteral catheterization. Prior to the TA station, the students were provided a pre‐test (3 questions) to assess knowledge of common male urogenital anatomy concepts. The same questions were provided after completing the station. Both pre‐ and post‐tests used clinical vignettes with multiple choice answers (A through D). Students received 1 point if they answered correctly and 0 points if they answered incorrectly.

Results

The pre‐ and post‐tests answers were analyzed for improved understanding of male urogenital anatomy. For the first question on the pampiniform plexus in relation to varicocele formation, 61% of students answered correctly in the post‐test, compared to 23% in the pre‐test. For the second question on spermatic cord location in context of testicular torsion, 72% answered correctly in the post‐test, compared to 64% in the pre‐test. For the third question on clinical significance of the deep dorsal vein, 71% answered correctly in the post‐test, compared with 28% in the pre‐test.

Conclusion/Implication

The results demonstrated an increase in the knowledge base and improvement in learning outcomes after the lab sessions using clinical vignettes and PBLs in addition to cadaveric prosection. We believe that this novel teaching approach can improve the baseline standards of anatomy education, recall, and model for instruction innovation in the medical school curriculum.

1. Iwanaga J, Loukas M, Dumont AS, Tubbs RS. A review of anatomy education during and after the COVID‐19 pandemic: Revisiting traditional and modern methods to achieve future innovation. Clin Anat. 2021 Jan;34(1):108‐114. doi: 10.1002/ca.23655. Epub 2020 Aug 24.

2. Faisal R; Khalil‐ur‐Rehman, Bahadur S, Shinwari L. Problem‐based learning in comparison with lecture‐based learning among medical students. J Pak Med Assoc. 2016 Jun;66(6):650‐3.