Vol 72, No 4 (2022)
Research paper (original)
Published online: 2022-05-25

open access

Page views 3962
Article views/downloads 297
Get Citation

Connect on Social Media

Connect on Social Media

Anatomy is the key to mastery in cancer and general surgery: the results of a survey on anatomical knowledge among surgeons

Katarzyna A. Kowalczyk123, Adrianna Majewski4, Wojciech Wysocki125, Krzysztof Tomaszewski236
Nowotwory. Journal of Oncology 2022;72(4):226-230.

Abstract

Introduction.Cancer and general surgery is a medical field in which anatomical knowledge is crucial. The anatomy taught to medical students is based on a standardized model of the body, with no regard paid to anatomical variations which can result in serious difficulties and disorientation during surgical procedures.

Material and methods.Our goal was to assess anatomical knowledge, including anatomical variations, among sur­geons. The questionnaire was administered among a group of 90 surgeons (general [69.7%] and oncological [20.2%]). The mean number of years in practice in their respective field was 12.9 ± 9.3.

Results.All participants were unanimous in declaring that anatomical knowledge was required in everyday surgical practice. The responses were also consistent in describing the role of knowledge of anatomical variations, declaring it “very important” and “important” in avoiding complications (76.4%). The majority of surgeons rated their anatomical aptitude as “good” (57.3%) or “very good” (13.5%).

Conclusions.The anatomical knowledge of Polish general and cancer surgeons is satisfactory.

Article available in PDF format

View PDF Download PDF file

References

  1. Turney BW. Anatomy in a modern medical curriculum. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2007; 89(2): 104–107.
  2. Netterstrøm I, Kayser L. Learning to be a doctor while learning anatomy! Anat Sci Educ. 2008; 1(4): 154–158.
  3. Staśkiewicz GJ, Walczak E, Torres K, et al. What do clinicians think of the anatomical knowledge of medical students? Results of a survey. Folia Morphol (Warsz). 2007; 66(2): 138–142.
  4. Singh R, Tubbs R. Should a Highly Skilled Surgeon be an Advanced Anatomist first? - A View Point. Basic Sciences of Medicine. 2015; 4(4): 53–57.
  5. Wysocki W, Libondi G, Juszczak A. Surgical anatomy of the breast revisited. Nowotwory J Oncol. 2020; 70(1): 26–28.
  6. Cieśla S, Wichtowski M, Poźniak-Balicka R, et al. The surgical anatomy of the mammary gland. Vascularisation, innervation, lymphatic drainage, the structure of the axillary fossa (part 2. Nowotwory J Oncol. 2021; 71(1): 62–69.
  7. Waterston SW, Stewart IJ. Survey of clinicians' attitudes to the anatomical teaching and knowledge of medical students. Clin Anat. 2005; 18(5): 380–384.
  8. Sharma G, Aycart MA, Najjar PA, et al. A cadaveric procedural anatomy course enhances operative competence. J Surg Res. 2016; 201(1): 22–28.
  9. Mattar SG, Alseidi AA, Jones DB, et al. General surgery residency inadequately prepares trainees for fellowship: results of a survey of fellowship program directors. Ann Surg. 2013; 258(3): 440–449.
  10. Tayyem R, Qandeel H, Qsous G, et al. Medical Students' vs. Consultant Surgeons' View of Anatomy Knowledge. International Journal of Morphology. 2019; 37(4): 1475–1479.
  11. Cottam WW. Adequacy of medical school gross anatomy education as perceived by certain postgraduate residency programs and anatomy course directors. Clin Anat. 1999; 12(1): 55–65, doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2353(1999)12:1<55::AID-CA8>3.0.CO;2-O.
  12. Goodwin H. Litigation and surgical practice in the UK. Br J Surg. 2000; 87(8): 977–979.
  13. Rogers SO, Gawande AA, Kwaan M, et al. Analysis of surgical errors in closed malpractice claims at 4 liability insurers. Surgery. 2006; 140(1): 25–33.
  14. Somville FJ, van Sprundel M, Somville J. Analysis of surgical errors in malpractice claims in Belgium. Acta Chir Belg. 2010; 110(1): 11–18.
  15. Regenbogen SE, Greenberg CC, Studdert DM, et al. Patterns of technical error among surgical malpractice claims: an analysis of strategies to prevent injury to surgical patients. Ann Surg. 2007; 246(5): 705–711.
  16. Raikos A, Smith JD. Anatomical variations: How do surgical and radiology training programs teach and assess them in their training curricula? Clin Anat. 2015; 28(6): 717–724.
  17. Henry BM, Tomaszewski KA, Walocha JA. Methods of Evidence-Based Anatomy: a guide to conducting systematic reviews and meta-analysis of anatomical studies. Ann Anat. 2016; 205: 16–21.
  18. Ahmed K, Rowland S, Patel V, et al. Is the structure of anatomy curriculum adequate for safe medical practice? Surgeon. 2010; 8(6): 318–324.
  19. Ellis H. Medico-legal Litigation and its Links with Surgical Anatomy. Surgery (Oxford). 2002; 20(8).
  20. Zubaryev M, Kim HS, Min BS. Local excision vs. radical surgery in treating rectal nets considering the biology of neuroendocrine tumors (NETs). Nowotwory J Oncol. 2021; 71(1): 9–16.



Nowotwory. Journal of Oncology