Pasar al contenido principal
artículo original
Escuchar
Pause
Play
Stop

Musculoskeletal Anatomy by Self-examination: A Learners´ Satisfaction Survey at the 2018 PANLAR Meeting

Created: 14 August 2024
  • Cristina Hernández-Diaz
    Cristina Hernández-Diaz
    Cristina Hernández-Diaz
  • Miguel Angel Saavedra
    Miguel Angel Saavedra
    Miguel Angel Saavedra
  • Virginia Pascual-Ramos
    Virginia Pascual-Ramos
    Virginia Pascual-Ramos
  • Robert A. Kalish
    Robert A. Kalish
    Robert A. Kalish
  • Juan J. Canoso
    Juan J. Canoso
    Juan J. Canoso
DOI
https://doi.org/10.46856/grp.10.e062
Citar como

Hernández-Diaz C, Saavedra MA, Pascual-Ramos V, Kalish RA, Canoso JJ. Musculoskeletal Anatomy by Self-examination: A Learners´ Satisfaction Survey at the 2018 PANLAR Meeting [Internet]. Global Rheumatology. Vol 2 / Ene - Jun [2021]. Available from: https://doi.org/10.46856/grp.10.e062

3 Vistas
Descargar PDF
Facebook Twitter Twitter Share

Licencia

Este es un artículo de acceso abierto, distribuido bajo los términos de Creative Commons Attribution (CC .BY. NC-4). Esta permitido copiar y redistribuir el material en cualquier medio o formato. Remezclar, transformar y construir a partir del material . Usted debe dar crédito de manera adecuada, brindar un enlace a la licencia, e indicar si se han realizado cambios. Puede hacerlo en cualquier forma razonable, pero no de forma tal que sugiera que usted o su uso tienen el apoyo de la licenciante. Usted no puede hacer uso del material con propósitos comerciales.

Musculoskeletal Anatomy by Self-examination: A Learners´ Satisfaction Survey at the 2018 PANLAR Meeting

Introducción:

La anatomía musculoesquelética (AME) es la base del examen físico reumatológico. La AME, en asociación con la ecografía, son esenciales en la formación de reumatólogos. Los autores desarrollaron una pedagogía centrada en el alumno, la AME por autoexamen (AMEA), que combina la autoinspección, palpación y percepción, para suplementar pedagogías estándar de AME.

Objetivo:

Determinar la satisfacción de los participantes con AMEA en tres talleres realizados en el Congreso PANLAR 2018.

Métodos:

Los ejercicios de AMEA incluyen una descripción de elementos anatómicos críticos, su autoidentificación por inspección, palpación y autopercepción, el efecto del movimiento o la contracción muscular en éstos y una revisión de su importancia clínica. Evaluamos diecisiete ejercicios para determinar la satisfacción de los participantes; seis de hombro y codo, cinco de mano y muñeca y seis de extremidades inferiores. Antes de los talleres, los participantes fueron invitados a completar una encuesta voluntaria y anónima de satisfacción con el nuevo método utilizando un cuestionario y una escala visual análoga. Los resultados se expresaron con estadística descriptiva.

Resultados:

Un total de 280 asistentes participaron en los talleres, 100 en el primero, 120 en el segundo y 60 en el tercero. Noventa, 100 y 37 participantes, respectivamente, completaron la encuesta. Reumatólogos, otros profesionales y residentes, independientemente de las regiones anatómicas, expresaron una satisfacción con el método mayor del 80%.

Conclusiones:

En esta sencilla encuesta, la satisfacción de los participantes con AMEA fue alta y estudios formales sobre su utilidad parecen justificados.

La enseñanza de la anatomía en la facultad de medicina ya se encontraba en un estado de cambio y ahora puede estar en crisis debido a la pandemia de COVID-19. Las clases con más estudiantes y la escasez de cadáveres adecuados para la disección dieron lugar a pedagogías como modelos anatómicos realistas, especímenes plastinados, reconstrucciones en 3D basadas en muestras cadavéricas, tomografía computarizada (TC), disección virtual por resonancia magnética (IRM) y simulación médica [1-4]. La enseñanza de la anatomía en vivo avanzó mediante la pintura corporal de modelos, el interrogatorio entre pares [5-7] y el uso de la ecografía (US) [8]. De estas pedagogías, las dos últimas se aplicaron eminentemente a la enseñanza de posgrado en subespecialidades basadas en el sistema musculoesquelético (MSK), como la neurología, la fisioterapia, la medicina de rehabilitación, la reumatología y la medicina deportiva [9-11]. Ahora, la pandemia de COVID-19 da un impulso adicional a la enseñanza virtual y crea la necesidad de pedagogías innovadoras. Aunque la disección de cadáveres sigue siendo la piedra angular reconocida de las ciencias médicas y puede conducir a los mejores resultados [12], hay indicios de que los estudiantes prefieren los métodos de visualización en 3D en comparación con las disecciones de cadáveres y los libros [3].

Los viejos libros de texto de anatomía de superficie recomendaban el autoexamen para practicar lo aprendido en las sesiones de disección [13]. Sin embargo, como un método flexible y complementario centrado en el alumno en la escuela de medicina y los niveles de posgrado, la anatomía MSK por autoexamen (MSKASE) se ha propuesto recientemente [14]. El autoexamen permite una percepción exquisita de las partes MSK alcanzables, incluidos algunos nervios y arterias. Además, el método tiene la fuerza incorporada de la autopercepción. Esta característica única de MSKASE puede ayudar a comprender el efecto del movimiento en áreas complejas, mejorar la apreciación espacial y, como resultado, aumentar la memoria [15]. Un posible beneficio adicional es que los ejercicios se pueden enseñar y evaluar mediante videoconferencia. En esta encuesta, los autores no compararon el nuevo método con otros métodos. Sus objetivos eran mucho más limitados, vislumbrar la satisfacción del participante con una pedagogía única y dirigida a sí mismo.

Material and methods

The authors were invited to hold three clinical anatomy workshops at the 2018 PANLAR (Pan American League of Associations for Rheumatology) Meeting in Buenos Aires, Argentina. The workshops were free and open to all. This fortunate circumstance allowed the authors to evaluate the satisfaction with MSKASE by 102 rheumatologists, six other MSK anatomy-related subspecialists; 50 rheumatology trainees; and 60 unstated subspecialty trainees. Each of the three workshops, held on consecutive days, had a duration of 1 hour and 45 minutes. At the beginning of each session, attendees were invited to fill, following the workshop, a de-identified simple evaluation form, which included their speciality, level of training (trainees or specialists), and perception of the method. Demographic characteristics, such as age and sex, were not inquired about. The three instructors proposed the survey content, which was an extension of a pilot survey at the Anatomy Department, National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM), which failed because only eleven students participated. The instructors used a six-component questionnaire. The components were: 1. Attendees' perception that learning materials were helpful. 2. Attendees´ perception that the method helps incorporate knowledge of clinical anatomy. 3. Attendees´ perception that there was adequate time for the exercises. 4. Attendees’ perception that the acquired knowledge and skills are relevant. 5. Attendees’ perception that he/she would be able to apply the acquired knowledge and skills. 6. Attendees´ perception that they would recommend peers to attend a similar MSKASE seminar. For each component, a five-point Likert scale was used to capture the amplitude of attendees´ perceptions. Based on the distribution of the patients´ responses, scale responses were further reduced into three categories, as follows: strongly disagree/disagree, neutral, and agree/strongly agree (Figure 1). Finally, a visual analog scale (VAS) was used for an overall rating of workshop satisfaction (Figure 2). Results were expressed with descriptive statistics. To balance the presentations, each of the three instructors led one of the seminars. The other two assisted the participants in identifying in their bodies the anatomical items being discussed. The instructors (CH-D, MÁS) had a 3-year training in clinical anatomy from 2007 to 2010 under the direction of JJC. They gained substantial experience conducting through the Americas clinical anatomy seminars based on instructors' and trainees' cross-examination. Thus, although the teaching method was not formally standardized, the three instructors´ shared training and experience likely resulted in a uniform teaching style.

Table 1 indicates the shoulder and elbow, wrist and hand, and lower extremity items or functions and their clinical relevance discussed in the workshops. None of these exercises requires privacy in their execution. To give some examples, Exercise 1 explores a possible neck or cervical spine source of shoulder pain. To this end, the participants bent the neck forward, backward, to the sides, and rotated the head. In muscle contracture, bending or turning the neck contralaterally would cause the pain.  In contrast, homolateral motions would trigger radicular, facet joint, or uncovertebral joint pain. If these motions did not cause the pain, then the various shoulder manoeuvres will likely establish its origin. Exercise 2, which in clinical practice would follow Exercise 1, is the full abduction of the extended extremity in the scapular plane. Pain in the mid-range of elevation suggests a rotator cuff tendinopathy. Pain beginning near-total elevation indicates that the faulty structure is the acromioclavicular or the sternoclavicular joint. The defective structure is indicated by tenderness on pressing one of these joints. Exercise 8 explores by palpation of the four bone eminences where the transverse carpal ligament inserts. These landmarks, plus the identification of the tendon of palmaris longus and flexor carpi radialis, allow a safe blind steroid injection in the carpal tunnel syndrome. Exercise 12 detects the origin of the hip abductor muscles. In the standing position, participants place the first web space (between the thumb and the index) of one hand between the greater trochanter and the pelvic rim, index to the front, and thumb to the back. Then, participants take a few steps or stand on one leg at a time. The index will feel the tensor fasciae latae, the web gluteus medius, and the index gluteus maximus.

Resultados

Approximately sixty participants were expected at each workshop; however, 100 attended the first, 120 the second, and 60 the third, which took place the last day of the meeting as its ending event when many attendants had left.

Ninety (90%) participants in the first workshop returned the evaluation form, 100 (83%) in the second, and 37 (62%) in the third. Figure 1 is a bar graph that depicts the participant´s perception statements per anatomical region based on the three-point reduction of the five-point Likert scale used. The authors felt that such reduction was advisable because most participants agreed or strongly agreed with the new method regardless of the anatomical region and lecturer. Figure 2 is a radar chart visualization that provides the global rating per anatomical region by specialists (102 rheumatologists and six other MSK-interested specialists), rheumatology trainees (50), and other trainees who did not mention the subspecialty (69). In all instances, regardless of the anatomical region -and therefore irrespective of the lecturer- and type of participants -professionals and trainees- the satisfaction rate was uniformly over 80mm out of a possible 100mm.

The room's theatre arrangement, with the podium at the front and the chairs arranged in rows, plus the unexpectedly large number of attendees in the first two workshops, created logistical problems during the lectures that the assistants solved rushing around the room between the chair rows.

Discusión y conclusiones

As the survey results indicate, the participants' satisfaction with the novel, learner centered MSKASE method was rated highly for the three self-explored anatomical regions and by various specialists (mostly rheumatologists) and postgraduate trainees. While the effectiveness of the new method as compared with other living anatomy methods remains unproven, the results of the current survey suggest that given its general availability, lack of cost, and lack of intimacy barriers, MSKASE may be a useful adjunct to what is learned with other living anatomy pedagogies such as body painting (16), peer cross-examination (17), and peer-instructor cross-examination (18). Furthermore, with the COVID-19 pandemic, MSKASE could be a useful adjunct to imaging-based remote pedagogies.

Strengths of the current survey include a uniformly favorable perception of the method across specialties, training levels, and anatomical regions. Additionally, participants commented favorably on the opportunity to repeat the exercises anywhere and anytime and the absence of intimacy barriers.

There are several limitations to this survey. First, the idea to assess the participants´ satisfaction with the method occurred to the authors close to the meeting, precluding a formal application to IRB approval. However, since no personal information was requested, data were de-identified, and participation was voluntary, no ethical barriers were infringed. Also, the scarcity of time precluded an early involvement of an expert in education in the study design. Another limitation was the unexpectedly large participant to instructor ratio compounded by the theater-type arrangement of the room. Ideally, the instructor, an examining table, and a screen should be at the front and the participants´ chairs arranged in a horseshoe layout with a maximum of three rows and at least 1m of free space between rows to facilitate the displacement of the instructors.

Despite these and other deficiencies, the results of the current survey are encouraging. They suggest that the method is well-received and worthy of further testing to aid current living anatomy pedagogies.

In summary, MSKASE is a novel learner-centered pedagogy that includes self-inspection, self-palpation, and self-perception. This method, which appears suitable for remote learning, was used for the first time at the 2018 PANLAR Meeting in Buenos Aires, Argentina. A voluntary, anonymous satisfaction poll conducted among a variety of participants revealed a high level of acceptance.

The authors declare no conflict of interest in the development of this manuscript

None

Referencias

References

  1. Estai M, Bunt S. Best teaching practices in anatomy education: A critical review. Ann Anat. 2016;208:151-157. doi:10.1016/j.aanat.2016.02.010.

 

  1. Wilson AB, Miller CH, Klein BA, Taylor MA, Goodwin M, Boyle EK, Brown K, Hoppe C, Lazarus M. A meta-analysis of anatomy laboratory pedagogies. Clin Anat. 2018;31(1):122-133. doi:10.1002/ca.22934

 

  1. Triepels CPR, Koppes DM, Van Kuijk SMJ, Popeijus HE, Lamers WH, van Gorp T, Futterer JJ, Kruitwagen RFPM, Notten KJB. Medical students' perspective on training in anatomy. Ann Anat. 2018 May;217:60-65. doi: 10.1016/j.aanat.2018.01.006. Epub 2018 Mar 6. PMID: 29501634

 

  1. Lo S, Abaker ASS, Quondamatteo F, Clancy J, Rea P, Marriott M, Chapman P. Use of a virtual 3D anterolateral thigh model in medical education: Augmentation and not replacement of traditional teaching? J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2020;73:269–275. doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2019.09.034

 

  1. McMenamin PG, McLachlan J, Wilson A, McBride JM, Pickering J, Evans DJR, Winkelmann A. Do we really need cadavers anymore to learn anatomy in undergraduate medicine? Med Teach. 2018 Oct;40(10):1020-1029. doi: 10.1080/0142159X.2018.1485884. Epub 2018 Sep 28. PMID: 30265177.

 

  1. Agius A, Stabile I. Undergraduate peer assisted learning tutors' performance in summative anatomy examinations: a pilot study. Int J Med Educ. 2018 Mar 30;9:93-98. doi: 10.5116/ijme.5aa3.e2a6. PMID: 29621744; PMCID: PMC5951778.

 

  1. Wearn A, Bhoopatkar H. Experience of a peer physical examination policy within a New Zealand medical programme. Med Teach. 2014;36, 826–827.

 

  1. Davis JJ, Wessner CE, Potts J, et al. Ultrasonography in undergraduate medical education: A systematic review. J Ultrasound Med. 2018;37:2667–2679. doi:10.1002/jum.14628

 

  1. Hernández-Díaz C, Ventura-Ríos L, Gutiérrez M, et al. Ultrasonography in pediatric rheumatology in Latin America. Expanding the frontiers. Clin Rheumatol. 2016;35:1077–1080. doi:10.1007/s10067-016-3217-x.

 

  1. Mandl P, Baranauskaite A, Damjanov N, Hojnik M, Kurucz R, Nagy O et al. Musculoskeletal ultrasonography in routine rheumatology practice: data from Central and Eastern European countries. Rheumatol Int. 2016;36:845-854. doi:10.1007/s00296-016-3442-2.

 

  1. Villaseñor-Ovies P, Navarro-Zarza JE, Canoso JJ. The rheumatology physical examination: making clinical anatomy relevant. Clin Rheumatol. 2020;39:651–657. doi:10.1007/s10067-019-04725-9.

 

  1. Hołda MK, Stefura T, Koziej M, Skomarovska O, Jasińska KA, Sałabun W, Klimek-Piotrowska W. Alarming decline in recognition of anatomical structures amongst medical students and physicians. Ann Anat. 2019;221:48–56. doi:10.1016/j.aanat.2018.09.004

 

  1. Gilman-Morehead T. Surface Anatomy. New York, William Wood & Co, 1905, (ii).

 

  1. Canoso JJ, Saavedra MÁ, Pascual-Ramos V, Sánchez-Valencia MA, Kalish RA. Musculoskeletal anatomy by self-examination: A learner-centered method for students and practitioners of musculoskeletal medicine. Ann Anat. 2020;228:151457. doi:10.1016/j.aanat.2019.151457.

 

  1. Nguyen N, Mulla A, Nelson AJ, Wilson TD. Visuospatial anatomy comprehension: The role of spatial visualization ability and problem-solving strategies. Anat Sci Educ. 2014;7:280–288. doi:10.1002/ase.1415.

 

  1. McLaughlin JE, Roth MT, Glatt DM, Gharkholonarehe N, Davidson CA, Griffin LM, Esserman DA, Mumper RJ. The flipped classroom: a course redesign to foster learning and engagement in a health professions school. Acad Med.2014;89:236–243. doi:10.1097/ACM.0000000000000086.

 

  1. McMenamin PG. Body painting as a tool in clinical anatomy teaching. Anat Sci Educ. 2008 Jul-Aug;1(4):139-44. doi: 10.1002/ase.32. PMID: 19177400.

 

  1. Bergman EM, Sieben JM, Smailbegovic I, de Bruin AB, Scherpbier AJ, van der Vleuten CP. Constructive, collaborative, contextual, and self-directed learning in surface anatomy education. Anat Sci Educ. 2013;6:114-124. doi:10.1002/ase.1306

 

  1. Kalish RA, Canoso JJ. Development of the seminar. Reumatol Clin. 2012 Dec-2013 Jan;8 Suppl 2:10-2. doi: 10.1016/j.reuma.2012.10.008. Epub 2012 Dec 8. PMID: 23228529.