Insertions, origins, actions, innervations, and blood supply important?

[DoctaJay]

Hey everyone. I'm taking the college version of gross anatomy and I'm frustrated that I even have to study things like actions, and insertion, or origin because they are almost never on the test or quizzes. Now I'm too scared not to study them, but I wanted to know whether medical schools slammed you all with origins, insertions, actions, innervations, and blood supplies of different muscles on their tests? Thanks.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[liveandlearn]

yes, you need to know the muscles. is it useful? probably not.

 

[Gimlet]

Hey everyone. I'm taking the college version of gross anatomy and I'm frustrated that I even have to study things like actions, and insertion, or origin because they are almost never on the test or quizzes. Now I'm too scared not to study them, but I wanted to know whether medical schools slammed you all with origins, insertions, actions, innervations, and blood supplies of different muscles on their tests? Thanks.

From what I can tell, it definitely depends on the school. On a test, we would never be explicitly asked, "What is the insertion and origin of X muscle?" I have heard of schools that do expect you to know it this way.

Our tests are more clinically oriented. For example, a (simple) question might say, "A patient comes into your emergency room with a stab wound to the upper arm. You note that they cannot extend their hand at the wrist. What nerve is most likely injured?" This requires you to know that the extensors in your forearm are innervated by the radial nerve.

I guess what I'm saying is that, yes, you need to know these things. However, rote memorization of each individual muscle's innervation, origin, etc. is probably the worst way to learn this stuff. You need to learn the big picture relationships and the minutiae will follow.

 

[Law2Doc]

Hey everyone. I'm taking the college version of gross anatomy and I'm frustrated that I even have to study things like actions, and insertion, or origin because they are almost never on the test or quizzes. Now I'm too scared not to study them, but I wanted to know whether medical schools slammed you all with origins, insertions, actions, innervations, and blood supplies of different muscles on their tests? Thanks.

Agree with the prior posters. This stuff is all fair game, and you will be expected to be able to answer questions relying on this info.

 

[logos]

The general rule of thumb for med school is "if you dont think you need to know it....you'd better know it because thats what they are going to ask about on the test..."

Our anatomy tests never asked easy questions. If you came up to a table on the practical and a muscle you recognized right away was pinned, the question was never to identify it, it was to give its innervation or blood supply or some similar detail. They assume that if you know the details, you know the general stuff.

I would say that origin/insertion was the least important stuff for us. We needed the blood supply and innervation down cold. The origin/insertion stuff (actually, these words are kinda out of style...we just called them all "attachments") you could usually guess correctly unless it was something that was emphasized.

 

[AStudent]

awww, they're so cute when they're young

Yes, everything, no question, hands down, you must know everything. (no joke)


I think the only thing they let slide was at what degrees of abducting your arms do the different muscles take over.


Typical questions would be:
Artery A supplies all muscles except,
If you cut nerve B which muscles lose fuction (mmm, nerve lesions),
Muscle C has it's insertion in what relation to the bifucation of vessel D,
Does nerve E carry afferent/efferent sympathetic/parasymp fibers,
Identify this feature F on MRI/CT/XRAY/Angiogram

 

[jennyboo]

Hey everyone. I'm taking the college version of gross anatomy and I'm frustrated that I even have to study things like actions, and insertion, or origin because they are almost never on the test or quizzes. Now I'm too scared not to study them, but I wanted to know whether medical schools slammed you all with origins, insertions, actions, innervations, and blood supplies of different muscles on their tests? Thanks.

Yes, you do have to learn those in medical school -- innervations and actions are particularly useful. Origins and insertions are not as useful to know, but from what I remember we were asked those questions too. Blood supply is not that useful except in surgery for most extremities, but there are a few important blood supplies to know too.

But you don't need to learn all of it now while in college. Just get a feel for how to study for your class and what's "important."

 

[synapse lapse]

Yes know it all. But if you don't need to know it for undergrad why learn it now?

 

[latinfridley]

I think the only thing they let slide was at what degrees of abducting your arms do the different muscles take over.

We had to know this in our school actually.

 

[synapse lapse]

We had to know this in our school actually.

They taught us it, but only asked general questions about it instead of specifi (i.e. woman can't abduct her arm standing up but if she leans to side and gravity abducts arm she can raise above head=supraspinatus, etc).

 

[DoctaJay]

Wow, that is serious stuff they have yall learning...I can't wait, lol. Thanks for all the advice. I'll try to pay attention more to how everything relates to each other.

 

[Cocodrilo]

Hey everyone. I'm taking the college version of gross anatomy and I'm frustrated that I even have to study things like actions, and insertion, or origin because they are almost never on the test or quizzes. Now I'm too scared not to study them, but I wanted to know whether medical schools slammed you all with origins, insertions, actions, innervations, and blood supplies of different muscles on their tests? Thanks.

Innervations-yes, especially the sensation to the skin overlying them (dermatomes). Actions-you need to know only generally. The thing is that if one muscle atrophies, others can make up for it, so its hard to specifically say the definite function of that muscle.

Insertions are for your benefit-helps you to think about their actions and where to find them. I only remember being asked a few of them-and those were the ones that got driven home in lecture. Best bet is to ask your proff.

We had to know blood supply to compartments in the forearm and leg, because that is important for compartment syndrome.

 

[Sureshot83]

Wow, that is serious stuff they have yall learning...I can't wait, lol. Thanks for all the advice. I'll try to pay attention more to how everything relates to each other.

I think someone else touched on this, but it is a really bad idea to sit there with your excel spreadsheet and memorize....."ok, long head of biceps attaches to supraglenoid tubercle, but the short head is coracoid process," (if I remember correctly) etc. You should first get the muscles down, and as you're reviewing in lab just get a sense of the general area where they attach. By the 2nd or 3rd run-through, you'll find that you just instinctively know the muscle attachments, by use, not by memorization.

Also, this might be another thing that varies by school, but at my school we only seemed to be tested on the "unique" attachments. By that, I mean we would be tested on the lesser trochanter, because only one muscle attaches there (iliopsoas), but not on the greater trochanter, because there are a lot that attach there.

Anyway, I'm curious....what the hell does it mean to learn anatomy if you don't cover blood supply, innervation, or attachments? Haha, if that was the case, med school anatomy would last like one week. "OK, class, this is the head....the head bone's connected to the neck bone..."

 

[liveandlearn]

Anyway, I'm curious....what the hell does it mean to learn anatomy if you don't cover blood supply, innervation, or attachments? Haha, if that was the case, med school anatomy would last like one week. "OK, class, this is the head....the head bone's connected to the neck bone..."

yeah, its probably safe to assume that if it is being taught in an undergrad anatomy class that you will likely need to know it in medical school. but i understand the first poster's frustration.