Naming the Dead: What information do Physical Therapy and Physician Assistant Anatomy Faculty Share With Students?

In this novel study, the researchers quantify cadaver information provided to Physical Therapy (PT) and Physician Assistant (PA) anatomy faculty and ask what portion of that information is then shared with students. Descriptive statistics were used to the describe demographics of the study respondents and to report survey responses. The majority (60% or greater) of faculty who teach anatomy to PT and PA students have clinical degrees matching the student groups they teach. Chi-square analysis showed no appreciable difference (P < 0.001) between PT and PA anatomy faculty in the amount of cadaver information they receive or then share with students. There was a difference in the type of cadaver information (identifying vs. non-identifying) that is received and then shared by these faculty. Faculty are more likely to receive non-identifying cadaver information (93%) than identifying information (40%) (P < 0.0001) and share non-identifying information (83%) than identifying information (26%) with students (P < 0.0003). Interestingly, there is no consensus as to whether sharing cadaver information is respectful or disrespectful to those who donate their bodies for anatomy education and research. Further research is warranted into the reasons anatomy faculty withhold cadaver information from students and in the value, if any, for students knowing more about the cadavers they are learning from.

Comparison of two angles of approach for trigger point dry needling of the lumbar multifidus in human donors (cadavers).

STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive comparison study. OBJECTIVE: To assess the accuracy of two needle angle approaches for dry needling of the lumbar multifidus. BACKGROUND: Low back pain is a leading cause of disability around the world; the lumbar multifidus plays a vital role in low back health. Manual therapy such as dry needling can improve pain mediation and motor control activation of the lumbar multifidus. Clinicians practicing dry needling at the lumbar multifidus typically use an inferomedial approach considered non-controversial. Clinicians practicing electromyography and nerve conduction studies commonly sample the lumbar multifidus in a directly posteroanterior approach that may provide another option for dry needling technique. METHODS: Four human donors were used for a total of eight needle placements-four with an inferomedial orientation and four with a posteroanterior orientation. Each needle was placed from 1 to 1.5 cm lateral to the spinous process of L4 to the depth of the lumbar lamina. Each lower lumbar spine was then dissected to determine the structures that the needle traversed and the needle's final resting place. RESULTS: All four inferomedial approach needles ended at the lamina of the vertebrae below. All four posterior-anterior approach needles ended in the lamina of the same level. CONCLUSIONS: All eight needles traversed the lumbar multifidus and ended in the lumbar lamina with little possibility of the needle entering the subarachnoid space. Thus both the inferomedial and the posteroanterior angles of approach are efficacious for clinicians to use in dry needling of the lumbar mulifidus.