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

M Stojanovska, G Tingle, L Tan, L Ulrey, S Simonson-Shick, J Mlakar, H Eastman, R Gotschall, A Boscia, R Enterline, E Henninger, K A Herrmann, S W Simpson, M A Griswold, S Wish-Baratz, M Stojanovska, G Tingle, L Tan, L Ulrey, S Simonson-Shick, J Mlakar, H Eastman, R Gotschall, A Boscia, R Enterline, E Henninger, K A Herrmann, S W Simpson, M A Griswold, S Wish-Baratz

Abstract

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.

Keywords: Anatomy; HoloLens; Medical education; Mixed reality; Virtual reality.

© International Association of Medical Science Educators 2019.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
An example of an anatomical model
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Division of students into cohorts showing the anatomy that was learned on each modality
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Comparison of student (n = 64) performance on the cadaver-based and MR practical exams

Source: PubMed

3
Abonnieren