Avaliação de um modelo anatômico sintético tridimensional de assoalho pélvico no ensino de anatomia comparado com a pélve cadavérica / A synthetic three-dimensional pelvic model as na effective didactic tool compared to cadaveric pelvis
Helio Sergio Pinto Portugal
DATA DE PUBLICAÇÃO
The study of human anatomy is indispensable for knowledge and understanding of the human body as a whole, that is to say, the importance and interaction of all its structures and characteristics of each of its organs or parts, as an essential means to promote life and healing ills, primary intention in the act of caring, while technical, art and science, in its most significant commitment (1). Furthermore, the practice class using a comprehensive and manageable anatomic component is fundamental for a good teaching and learning process. The goals of this study were to evaluate: 1- the synthetic anatomic model of pelvic floor (SAMPF) as a didactic tool comparing it to the traditional anatomic class using cadaveric pelvis (CP) and 2- the satisfaction of the students with both didactic methods. Sixty seven medicine students, volunteers for this study, received a conventional theoretic anatomy class. Following this class, all students were randomized in 3 groups (G1, G2 and G3). G1 and G2 attended anatomical classes with different didactic methods, respectively: traditional practice anatomy class (TPC), practice anatomy class with SAMPF (SPC). G3 denominated control group which had no practice class. A preliminary theoretical test (PTT) was applied to all groups. The G1 underwent to a TC and G2 to a SC. A final theoretical test (FTT) was applied to all groups G1, G2 and G3. G1 and 2 underwent to the evaluation of their satisfaction about the anatomic component used for the practice class (Evaluation of the method - EM). The mean age was 19.41 (± 1.58) in G1, 19.31 (± 3.43) in G2 and 19.42 (± 3.35) in G3. Statistical analysis was done using ANOVA and Mann-Whitney test. At FTT G3 presented lower scores than G1 (p=0.041) and G2 (p=0.000). Difference between G1 and G2 was not found (p >0.05). G2 presented more satisfaction with the method (p = 0.001). We concluded that CP and SAMPF proved to be effective didactic tools. G3 presented lower scores than G1 and G2 possibly for not having attended to practical classes. G2 showed higher satisfaction.