A comparative analysis of lecturers' satisfaction with Anatomage and Pirogov virtual dissection tables during clinical and topographic anatomy courses in Russian universities

Anatomy is increasingly taught using computer-assisted learning tools, including electronic interactive anatomy dissection tables. Anatomage was he first virtual anatomy dissection table introduced in Russian medical universities and gained popularity among lecturers and students. The Pirogov interactive anatomy table was recently released, but the strengths and weakness of each platform is currently unknown. The objective of this article is to survey lecturers in anatomy to understand their perspectives on the Pirogov versus Anatomage virtual dissection tables' application to teaching in medical universities. A total of 80 anatomy educators from 12 Russian universities, using Anatomage (n = 40) and Pirogov (n = 40) tables were surveyed regarding their satisfaction with the application of the respective tables. Using a five-point Likert scale, both tables were assessed, and responses were statistically analyzed. In addition, qualitative analysis was performed on free response comments provided by survey respondents. There was no significant difference in overall satisfaction ratings between Pirogov (4.38 ± 0.53) and Anatomage (3.94 ± 0.60) interactive tables (p > 0.05). The Anatomage table ranked significantly higher on the accuracy of displayed anatomical details, resolution of the images, and its suitability for teaching senior medical and postgraduate students. Pirogov table performed significantly better on survey items measuring ergonomics, ability to assess students' performance, and teaching basic anatomy to junior first- and second-year medical students. Thus, in summary, anatomists' responses indicated that while both tables are suitable for teaching anatomy, the Pirogov table was superior in undergraduate medical education and the Anatomage table was more beneficial for teaching more senior trainees.