Prosection vs. dissection, the debate continues: Rebuttal to Granger

Anatomical Record - Part B New Anatomist

Volumn 281, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 12-14

  Topp, Kimberly S ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANATOMICAL VARIATION; ANATOMY; CADAVER; COMPUTER SYSTEM; DISSECTION; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; LABORATORY; MEDICAL STUDENT; NOMENCLATURE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSECTION; REVIEW; SKILL; TEAMWORK; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING;

ANATOMY; CADAVER; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; DISSECTION; EDUCATION, MEDICAL; HUMANS; PHYSICIAN-PATIENT RELATIONS; STUDENTS, MEDICAL;

EID: 9644258571     PISSN: 0003276X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/ar.b.20037     Document Type: Review

References (15)

1. Alexander J. 1970. Dissection versus prosection in the teaching of anatomy. J Med Educ 45:600-606.
2. Aziz M, McKenzie J, Wilson J, Cowie R, Ayeni S, Dunn B. 2002. The human cadaver in the age of biomedical informatics. Anat Rec 269:20-32.
3. Cahill D, Leonard R, Weiglein A, von Ludinghausen M. 2002. Viewpoint: unrecognized values of dissection considered. Surg Radiol Anat 24:137-139.
4. Dinsmore C, Daugherty S, Zeitz H. 1999. Teaching and learning gross anatomy: dissection, prosection, or "both of the above?" Clin Anat 12:110-114.
5. Ellis H. 2001. Teaching in the dissecting room. Clin Anat 14:149-151.
6. Jones N, Olafson R, Sutin J. 1978. Evaluation of a gross anatomy program without dissection. J Med Educ 53:198-205.
7. Leong S-K. 1999. Back to basics. Clin Anat 12:422-426.
8. Marks S. 2000. The role of three-dimensional information in health care and medical education: the implications for anatomy and dissection. Clin Anat 13:448-452.
9. McWhorter D, Forester J. 2004. Effects of an alternate dissection schedule on gross anatomy laboratory practice performance. Clin Anat 17:144-148.
10. Miller R. 2000. Approaches to learning spatial relationships in gross anatomy: perspective from wider principles of learning. Clin Anat 13:439-443.
11. Miller S, Perrotti W, Silverthorne D, Dalley A, Rarey K. 2002. From college to clinic: reasoning over memorization is key for understanding anatomy. Anat Rec 269:69-80.
12. Moore N. 1998. To dissect or not to dissect? Anat Rec 253:8-9.
13. Newell R. 1999. Follow the royal road: the case for dissection. Clin Anat 8:124-127.
14. Willan P, Humpherson J. 1999. Concepts of variation and normality in morphology: important issues at risk of neglect in modern undergraduate medical courses. Clin Anat 12:186-190.
15. Williams PI, Srivastava M, Conatser RJ, Howell J. 2004. Implementation and evaluation of a haptic playback system. Haptics C 3:1-6.