Anatomical software as a tool in the teaching‐learning process of human anatomy. Literature Review
Authors: Santana Edmundo Andres , Orquera Paulo Andres , Valenzuela Juan Jose , Orellana Mathias Ignacio , Gold Marjorie Hanna , De la Paz Garcia Guernica 
Published: April 2020

IntroductionFor several decades and centuries, the use of corpses and plastic samples have been the gold standard for teaching human anatomy in undergraduate. The constant technological evolution worldwide has not left human anatomy behind. In relation to this, since the end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century an enormous amount of anatomical software has been developed to support the teaching of human anatomy. which have been well accepted by both students and academics, but to date they have not been an academic revulsion to be the gold standard tool in the teaching of human anatomy.MethodsA systematic search of the literature in different databases was carried out to answer the following research question: Does the use of anatomical software improve the teaching‐learning process of students of human anatomy? The articles were filtered through criteria of inclusion and exclusion defined by the authors of this review (Fig 1). The search was done using the following terms: “Anatomical software”, “anatomical education”, “learning anatomy”, “3D anatomical”, the terms were joined through the boolean connectors “AND” “OR” “NOT”, with the above more sensitivity was given to the search strategy of Potentially readable items.ResultsThe analysis of the full‐text studies revealed that there is a wide variety of studies available in the scientific literature, which detail how these technological tools contribute to the study of human anatomy, although 65 studies were found when conducting our search that met the inclusion criteria established, when analyzing only 8 reported that the software was used for the use of learning in undergraduate or graduate students (Table
1). The analysis of all studies was measured through short questionnaire surveys or saturation surveys in which the students presented their experiences and degree of satisfaction with anatomical software through guided questions previously established by the authors. The other number of studies only analyzed the quality of the software or detailed the processes of elaboration of these. Another of the relevant things that have been analyzed is that most of the software used in the articles corresponded to skull software. The distribution is detailed in table
2.ConclusionThis review leaves us with quite a lot of questions especially in relation to the fact that our question addressed how anatomical software could influence the teaching‐learning process since no study related how software influences this process. We hoped to find that answer through some type of evaluation or some type of brain activation analysis which would allow us to analyze some cortical areas that will be enhanced with the use of software, given the above we believe that this leaves a window open for the realization of new studies that can address the previously proposed in order to attribute characteristics of the anatomical software available for the study of human anatomy and how to use them in different teaching processes.Support or Funding InformationUniversity of the Americas (Chile)
Summary of studies that conducted their studies on students of human anatomy.

Author and year

Title

Number of subjects evaluated

Type of evaluation

Sofware used

Effects on learning

Agbetoba A, 2018

Educational Utility of Advanced 3‐Dimensional Virtual Imaging in Evaluating the Anatomical Configuration of the Frontal Recess

45 ENT students and 20 medical students from five academic institutions.

Survey

RadiAnt Dicom Viewer Version 1.9.16 from Medixant, Pozan, Pland)
Compared to a 3D software

When asked which learning modality most helped to understand the spatial orientation of the frontal sinus, 56 students (86%) chose 3D learning, 3 students (5%) chose traditional 2D learning, and the remaining 6 students (9%) reported no difference between the two modalities.

Chen P. 2018

Teaching Residents Frontal Sinus Anatomy Using a Novel 3‐Dimensional Conceptualization Planning Software‐Based Module

50 subjects

Evaluate the recognition of frontal sinus structures.

Scopis building block

Participants in the FSMC using innovative software demonstrated improvements in the ability to
Softwares disponibles en la literature cientifica para el studio de la anatomia humana. Software available in the scientific literature for the study of human anatomy

Software name

Software link

Specific contents of the software

RadiAnt Dicom Viewer Version 1.9.16 from Medixant, Pozan, Pland)

http://www.radiantviewer.com/radiant‐dicom‐viewer‐standard.php.

2D sphenoid bone

Use of Amira software, version 5.2

https://www.thermofisher.com/cl/es/home/industrial/electron‐microscopy/electron‐microscopy‐instruments‐workflow‐solutions/3d‐visualization‐analysis‐software/amira‐life‐sciences‐biomedical.html

Creation of an eye model with specific structures.

SPM5

https://www.fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk/spm/software/spm5/

Brain

3D‐Slicer

https://www.slicer.org/

Pterygopalatine fossa

Scopis building block

https://scopis.myshopify.com/

Frontal Sinus

VOXEL‐MAN TemopoSurg

https://www.voxel‐man.com/gallery/temposurg/

3D frontal bone

The Chinese Visible Human Project

http://www.visageimaging.com/

Neck, specifically larynx

InVesalius

https://www.cti.gov.br/pt‐br/invesalius

Skull

Itk‐SNAP

http://www.itksnap.org/pmwiki/prnwiki.php

Skull

VuePACS3D

https://es.allypacs.com/?gclid=CjwKCAiA66_xBRBhEiwAhrMuLelC5M2K164Ejh‐‐

Skull