Introduction: Ilioinguinal nerve (IIN) is repeatedly damaged during surgeries as well as through the application of local anaesthesia to the lower abdominal wall. This study aimed to identify the variations of the IIN during its course in the anterior abdominal wall. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional study on formalin-preserved cadavers was carried out after approval by the ethical committee, Alzaeim Alazhari University (January 2018–May 2020). Cadavers satisfied the inclusion criteria were dissected bilaterally to expose and map the IINs from their lateral emergence on the anterior abdominal wall to their termination in the midline in reference to the internal and external inguinal rings as well as the fixed bony landmarks. The collected data were compared on both sides using SPSS version 21.0. Results: Fifty-four IINs were identified (77 cadavers). Double nerve was observed in 8.44%. IINs derived from L1, L1-3 and L3 in 98.1%, 1.3% and 0.6%, respectively. On the right side, in 3 corpses, the nerves aberrantly ascend from L3 or L1-3, whereas this deviant was not seen on the left side. The mean distance from the umbilicus was 9.2 cm ± 1.1 cm (equal on both sides). The mean distance from the deep ring was 1.5 cm ± 0.4 cm, it was closed on the right compared to the left (P = 0.87). It emerges 0.9 cm–6 cm from the anterior superior iliac spine, this was closed on the right than the left (P = 0.9). It was not attached to the external oblique muscle on the right side, whereas it did in 3.2% on the left (P = 0.03). The mean distance from the superficial ring was 1.9 cm ± 0.8 cm, almost the same on both sides. The mean distance from the inguinal ligament was 2.4 cm ± 0.5 cm, it was closed on the right than on the left (P = 0.98). Its mean thickness was 1.97 mm ± 0.44 mm and 1.88 mm ± 0.43 mm on the right and left sides, respectively. Conclusion: IIN demarcates variants not generally quoted in anatomical manuals.

Objectives: The goal of this study was to explore medical students' perceptions, assess their experiences, and identify obstacles to e-learning during the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as to understand the factors behind its adoption and application as a learning means in the surgery module. Materials and Methods: Data were gathered from undergraduate medical students, at the University of Hail, KSA, in their surgery module using an electronic questionnaire. Subsequently, SPSS version 25.0 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA) has been used for analysis. Results: The study included 72 students, with a participation rate of 85.7%. Students positively perceived technology (M = 4.024 ± 0.94 and P < 0.001). Most respondents (79.5%) claimed that e-learning required less time for studying than the conventional learning technique (M = 4.14 ± 1.052 and P < 0.001). They had positive perceptions of the implications of e-learning (M = 3.92 ± 0.89 and P < 0.001). Regarding the perception toward instructors, 53.9% admitted that when instructors use computer technologies, it adequately met their needs. The mean agreeability to online quizzes was high (M = 3.8264 ± 0.910). More than half preferred the blended style of learning. A-70.9% interested in using e-learning (M = 3.83 ± 1.278 and P < 0.001). There was no statistical difference among genders (P > 0.05). Conclusion: This study addresses the determinants behind the adoption and use of e-learning within the surgery module. Therefore, it will support the event of a rational approach to an effective application of e-learning and look at it as a positive initiative toward development and alteration.