Analysis of Reapplications to Integrated and Independent Plastic Surgery Residency

Abstract

Background: Plastic surgery is one of the most competitive specialties to match, with integrated plastic surgery having the highest rate of unmatched applicants in all categorical specialties. Unmatched applicants face difficult challenges, especially because there is a lack of data to help inform and guide both reapplicants and their advisors. Method: A national survey targeting plastic surgery applicants to both integrated and independent tracks from 2014 to 2020 was conducted in August 2020 to identify reapplicants, their application characteristics, and their outcomes. Results: Eighteen of the 54 (33.3%) integrated reapplicants responded to the survey, as well as 7 of the 42 (16.7%) independent reapplicants. Fifty percent of integrated reapplicants and 43% of independent reapplicants successfully eventually matched. For integrated reapplicants, the mean (SD) number of first cycle invites was the greatest predictor of eventual match success, 9.00 (5.93) invites for reapplicants that eventually successfully matched compared with 2.89 (2.89) for those that remained unmatched, P = 0.025. Integrated reapplicants obtained on average 2.47 less invites during the reapplicant cycle compared with the initial cycle, P = 0.046. A Fisher exact test revealed no differences in match outcomes of those integrated reapplicants who spent time in between cycles pursuing research compared with a preliminary surgical year, P = 0.99. Conclusions: Reapplication to both integrated and independent plastic surgery may result in worse matching outcomes compared with the initial match. Applicants should attempt to preemptively address potential initial application weaknesses as reapplication after a failed initial attempt may carry disadvantages.

Do Dedicated Research Years during Medical School Predict Academic Productivity during Residency?

“…Nonetheless, our large sample size and high response rate offload some of these concerns related to selection bias, as the total respondents in our study outnumber any survey study of plastic surgery residents or applicants to date. 3 , 15 , 21 , 22 …”

Routes to Residency: A National Survey Demonstrating the Pathways to Become a Plastic Surgeon

“…Away rotation performance (37) Once I knew I liked plastics, I aggressively applied for away rotations and did 3. I worked very hard on subinternships and got strong letters to boost my application Away rotation selection (9) I wish I were more informed about selecting which subinternships to apply to and select. Subinternships are very deterministic of where you end up or which programs you would be eligible to go to Applying and interviewing broadly (7) Apply to every PRS program and take every interview The experience is much simpler and less convoluted for integrated trainees straight out of medical school than for anyone else.…”

“…The authors did not find a significant advantage between pursuing a research year or an internship. 9 However, no studies have described the current number of formerly unmatched PRS applicants who eventually successfully obtained a PRS residency position or the different routes they undertook to achieve that goal.…”

“…5 However, three studies (with cohorts of 141 orthopedic surgery reapplicants, 81 orthopedic surgery reapplicants, and 23 otolaryngology reapplicants, respectively) have not shown an advantage to completing a surgical internship or a research year. 4,7,8 One recent article by Patel et al 9 surveyed a small cohort of PRS reapplicants about their match outcomes. For integrated applicants, they received 18 responses (33% response rate) and reported a 50% successful rematch rate.…”

The role research gap years play in a successful dermatology match

“…7 Further, in other competitive specialties, applicants reapplying to a specialty are at a significant disadvantage. 8 This suggests some applicants may want to consider strengthening their application before their initial application cycle. Taking a research gap year comes at significant expense to the applicant.…”