A randomized trial comparing cadaveric dissection and examination of prosections as applied surgical anatomy teaching pedagogies.

Anatomy is an important component in the vertical integration of basic science and clinical practice. Two common pedagogies are cadaveric dissection and examination of prosected specimens. Comparative studies mostly evaluate their immediate effectiveness. A randomized controlled trial design was employed to compare both the immediate and long-term effectiveness of dissection and prosection. Eighty third-year medical students undergoing their surgical rotation from the Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine were randomized into two groups: dissection and prosection. Each participated in a one-day hands-on course following a similar outline that demonstrated surgical anatomy in the context of its clinical relevance. A pre-course test was conducted to establish baseline knowledge. A post-course test was conducted immediately after and at a one-year interval to evaluate learner outcome and knowledge retention. A post-course survey was conducted to assess participant perception. Thirty-nine and thirty-eight participants for the dissection and prosection groups, respectively, were included for analysis. There was no significant difference between mean pre-course test scores between the dissection and prosection groups [12.6 (3.47) vs. 12.7 (3.16), P > 0.05]. Both the mean immediate [27.9 (4.30) vs. 24.9 (4.25), P < 0.05] and 1 year [23.9 (4.15) vs. 19.9 (4.05), P < 0.05] post-course test scores were significantly higher in the dissection group. However, when adjusted for course duration [dissection group took longer than prosection group (mean 411 vs. 265 min)], these findings were negated. There is no conclusive evidence of either pedagogy being superior in teaching surgical anatomy. Based on learner surveys, dissection provides a greater learner experience.