Current Trends in Orthopaedic Surgery Residency Applications and Match Rates.

BACKGROUND:The current U.S. orthopaedic residency application process is becoming increasingly impersonal in the wake of an increasing number of applications. Through an analysis of orthopaedic surgery residency application statistics, we have highlighted the effect that the number of orthopaedic applications has on match rate, and we have suggested methods for a more personalized application process. METHODS:Data from the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) and the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) for United States orthopaedic residency applicants from 2008 to 2018 were collected. These data included the average number of applications submitted per applicant, the average number of applications received per program, the total number of residency positions offered in the U.S., the total number of U.S. applicants, and the total number of U.S. applicants who matched to a U.S. orthopaedic surgery residency program. U.S. applicant match rates and the average number of applications received per residency position offered were calculated. Linear regression models were used to determine the rate at which these variables changed over time. RESULTS:The average number of applications submitted by an applicant increased from 46.5 in 2008 to 74.9 in 2018. The average number of applications received per residency position offered increased from 54.1 in 2008 to 85.7 in 2018. The number of U.S. applicants was 740 in 2008 and 849 in 2018. The number of U.S. orthopaedic residency programs only slightly increased from 160 in 2008 to 171 in 2018. The match rate for U.S. medical school applicants has remained stable from 2008 to 2018 at a mean of 76.9% and a standard deviation of 2.3%. CONCLUSIONS:The match rate has remained stable from 2008 to 2018 despite an increase in the number of applications per position. This discrepancy suggests that increasing the number of submitted applications may not correlate with applicant success. We address this discrepancy and suggest methods that can potentially allow for a more targeted orthopaedic application experience

Current Trends in Orthopaedic Surgery Residency Applications and Match Rates.

BACKGROUND:The current U.S. orthopaedic residency application process is becoming increasingly impersonal in the wake of an increasing number of applications. Through an analysis of orthopaedic surgery residency application statistics, we have highlighted the effect that the number of orthopaedic applications has on match rate, and we have suggested methods for a more personalized application process. METHODS:Data from the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) and the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) for United States orthopaedic residency applicants from 2008 to 2018 were collected. These data included the average number of applications submitted per applicant, the average number of applications received per program, the total number of residency positions offered in the U.S., the total number of U.S. applicants, and the total number of U.S. applicants who matched to a U.S. orthopaedic surgery residency program. U.S. applicant match rates and the average number of applications received per residency position offered were calculated. Linear regression models were used to determine the rate at which these variables changed over time. RESULTS:The average number of applications submitted by an applicant increased from 46.5 in 2008 to 74.9 in 2018. The average number of applications received per residency position offered increased from 54.1 in 2008 to 85.7 in 2018. The number of U.S. applicants was 740 in 2008 and 849 in 2018. The number of U.S. orthopaedic residency programs only slightly increased from 160 in 2008 to 171 in 2018. The match rate for U.S. medical school applicants has remained stable from 2008 to 2018 at a mean of 76.9% and a standard deviation of 2.3%. CONCLUSIONS:The match rate has remained stable from 2008 to 2018 despite an increase in the number of applications per position. This discrepancy suggests that increasing the number of submitted applications may not correlate with applicant success. We address this discrepancy and suggest methods that can potentially allow for a more targeted orthopaedic application experience

Short-Term Complications of Distal Humerus Fractures in Elderly Patients

Background: The purpose of this study was to evaluate 30-day postoperative complications of open reduction and internal fixation [ORIF] and total elbow arthroplasty [TEA] for the treatment of distal humerus fractures in elderly patients using a validated national database. Methods: Review of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) Database identified all elderly patients (>65 years) who underwent TEA or ORIF for the treatment of closed intra-articular distal humerus fractures from 2007 to 2013. Bivariate and multivariate analyses of risk factors for 30-day adverse events as defined by NSQIP between ORIF and TEA groups were assessed using preoperative and intraoperative variables. Results: Among the 176 patients with distal humerus fractures, there were 33 TEA and 143 ORIF. There was no difference in age, medical comorbidities, or functional status. Total elbow arthroplasty was associated with an increased odds of severe adverse event compared to ORIF (odds ratio = 1.57, P = .16), although it did not achieve statistical significance. Infection rate was 0.7% in ORIF and 0.0% in TEA ( P = .99). Insulin-dependent diabetes and functional status were significant independent predictors of postoperative adverse events. Operative time (165 minutes vs 140 minutes, P = .06) and postoperative length of stay (3.6 days vs 2.3 days, P = 0.03) were longer for TEA compared to ORIF. Conclusion: Open reduction and internal fixation and TEA have similar 30-day postoperative complications for the treatment of distal humerus fractures among elderly patients. Despite favorable trends for TEA in recent studies, additional clinical results are needed to understand complications and limitation of TEA. Level of evidence: Level III, prognostic study

Appendix Table 2 -Supplemental material for Risk factors for and timing of adverse events after revision total shoulder arthroplasty

<p>Supplemental material, Appendix Table 2 for Risk factors for and timing of adverse events after revision total shoulder arthroplasty by Aakash Keswani, Debbie Chi, Andrew J Lovy, Daniel A London, Paul J Cagle Jr, Bradford O Parsons and Joseph A Bosco in Shoulder & Elbow</p

Appendix Table 1 - Supplemental material for Risk factors for and timing of adverse events after revision total shoulder arthroplasty

<p>Supplemental material, Appendix Table 1 for Risk factors for and timing of adverse events after revision total shoulder arthroplasty by Aakash Keswani, Debbie Chi, Andrew J Lovy, Daniel A London, Paul J Cagle Jr, Bradford O Parsons and Joseph A Bosco in Shoulder & Elbow</p