Background and Objective: The COVID 19 pandemic has changed the way the human anatomy is taught. A necessary shift towards online instruction, combined with a decrease in cadaver donation has resulted in the need for maximizing formalinized, soft-embalmed, computerized, and plastinated cadaver specimens. Task-oriented activities allow students to demonstrate acquired knowledge and skills. It is the aim of this study to get the perspective of students in the utilization of available laboratory materials. Methods: One hundred forty-three students participated in task-oriented activities. Students demonstrated anatomy of the facial nerve, recurrent laryngeal nerve, and phrenic nerve by parotidectomy, thyroidectomy, and posterior neck dissection using formalinized cadaver and VH dissector™. Deep neck and sagittal structures in the plastinated specimen were identified using laser pointers. Ossicular mobility of the middle ear, and endoscopy of the nose and larynx were demonstrated using the soft embalmed cadaver. Students were surveyed on their perceptions on the utility of each cadaver specimen. Results: Formalinized and soft-embalmed cadaver were observed to present the most accurate anatomy, while the virtual dissector and plastinated specimens were seen to be the most sustainable and reusable. Conclusion Task-oriented learning in head and neck anatomy may use different cadaveric materials with varied accuracy and utility.
Anatomy ; Cadaver ; Education, Medical

Objective. To determine the diagnostic accuracy of self-collected snorted and spit saliva in detecting COVID-19 using RT-PCR (ssRT-PCR) and lateral flow antigen test (ssLFA) versus nasopharyngeal swab RT-PCR (npRT-PCR). Methods. One hundred ninety-seven symptomatic subjects for COVID-19 testing in a tertiary hospital underwent snort-spit saliva self-collection for RT-PCR and antigen testing and nasopharyngeal swab for RT-PCR as reference. Positivity rates, agreement, sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios were estimated. Results. Estimated prevalence of COVID-19 using npRT-PCR was 9% (exact 95% CI of 5.5% - 14.1%). A higher positivity rate of 13% in the ssRT-PCR assay suggested possible higher viral RNA in the snort-spit samples. There was 92.9% agreement between ssRT-PCR and npRT-PCR (exact 95% CI of 88.4% to 96.1%; Cohen’s Kappa of 0.6435). If npRT-PCR will be assumed as reference standard, the estimated Sensitivity was 83.3% (exact 95% CI of 60.8% to 94.2%), Specificity 93.9% (exact 95% CI of 89.3% to 96.5%), Positive predictive value of 57.7% (exact 95% CI of 38.9% to 74.5%), Negative predictive value of 98.2% (exact 95% CI of 95% to 99.4%), positive likelihood ratio of 3.65 (95% CI of 7.37 to 24.9), negative likelihood ratio of 0.178 (95% CI of 0.063 to 0.499). There was 84.84% agreement (95% exact CI of 79.1% to 89.5%; Cohen’s Kappa of 0.2356) between ssLFAvs npRT-PCR, sensitivity of 38.9% (exact 95% CI of 20.3% to 61.4%), specificity of 89.4% (exact 95% CI of 84.1% to 93.1%), PPV of 26.9% (95% CI of 13.7% to 46.1%), NPV of 93.6% (exact 95% CI of 88.8% to 96.4%), LR+ of 3.67 (95% CI of 1.79 - 7.51), LR – of 0.68 (95% CI of 0.47 - 0.99). Conclusion. Our data showed that snort-spit saliva RT-PCR testing had acceptable diagnostic performance characteristics and can potentially be used as an alternative to the standard nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal swab RT-PCR test for COVID-19 in certain situations. However, our data also showed that snort-spit saliva antigen testing using lateral flow assay did not offer acceptable performance.
Saliva ; SARS-CoV-2 ; Reverse Transcription ; Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction