Pipelining patterns in the shoulder and elbow surgery fellowship match: An analysis from 2018 to 2024

Abstract

Introduction

Pipelining is defined as the concentration of positions filled by graduates from the same or overlapping training programs. For fellowships, a history of high-quality fellows from a particular residency program may foster confidence and a preference for matching additional candidates from that program. Similarly, applicants may favorably rank programs at which previous co-residents or faculty mentors have had positive experiences. In light of the growing interest in promoting diversity and inclusion in the application process, this study evaluates the prevalence of pipelining and residency program representation within shoulder and elbow surgery fellowships. The purpose of this study is to quantify pipelining trends in shoulder and elbow fellowship matches between 2018 and 2024.

Methods

We analyzed match data from the San Francisco Match from 2018 to 2024, encompassing allopathic (MD), osteopathic (DO), and international medical graduates (IMGs), and excluded programs with less than 5 years of match data. Pipelining ratios (PRs) were calculated using the formula: PR = 1 - (number of unique residency programs matched / total number of fellowship positions available) and compared among programs and US regions. A PR of 1 indicates 100% pipelining, while a PR of 0 signifies no pipelining. The representation ratio (RR) was calculated and defined as the number of residents from a particular residency who matched into a specific fellowship divided by the total number of matched residents from the respective residency.

Results

A total of 250 matched applicants (210 MD, 20 DO, and 20 IMG), originating from 142 unique residency programs were evaluated across 26 fellowship programs. The most highly represented allopathic residencies included Thomas Jefferson (n = 9; 3.6%), University of Rochester (n = 6; 2.4%), and St Louis University School of Medicine (n = 5; 2.0%). The mean PR across all fellowships was 0.06 ± 0.08 (p = 0.0006), ranging from 0 (n = 15) to 0.32 (n = 1). The highest PR values were observed for Thomas Jefferson (0.32), Washington University (0.21), University of Florida (0.17), and Florida Orthopedic Institute (0.15). The highest RR values were observed for Baylor residents matching at University of Washington (0.50), Thomas Jefferson residents matching at Thomas Jefferson (0.44), and University of Rochester residents matching at Union Memorial (0.33). Overall, nearly 58% of the fellowship programs demonstrated no evidence of pipleining and the remaining 42% exhibited either minimal to relatively higher levels of pipelining.

Conclusion

There is wide variability in the rate of pipelining in shoulder and elbow surgery fellowships. Despite study limitations, including the relatively short observation period and absence of granular data on applicant/program rank order and reasons for rank decisions, this data contributes to greater transparency in the fellowship match. Recognizing these trends may help applicants make more informed decisions and better direct their application efforts during the fellowship match.

Level of evidence

IV.

Keywords

Shoulder and elbow surgery fellowship pipeline representation match patterns residency

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Horst

Choo

Bharucha

, et al. Graduates of orthopaedic residency training are increasingly subspecialized: a review of the American board of orthopaedic surgery part II database. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2015; 97: 869–875.

Chan

Charlton

Thordarson

. Analysis of orthopaedic job availability in the United States based on subspecialty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev 2020; 4: e20.00195.

Daniels

Grabel

DiGiovanni

. ACGME accreditation of orthopaedic surgery subspecialty fellowship training programs. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2014; 96: e94.

Pagani

Curry

, et al. Factors influencing resident satisfaction and fellowship selection in orthopaedic training programs: an American orthopaedic association North American traveling fellowship project. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2019; 101: e46.

Wera

Eisinger

Oreluk

, et al. Trends in the orthopaedic surgery fellowship match 2013 to 2017. J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev 2018; 2: e080.

Cannada

Luhmann

, et al. The fellowship match process: the history and a report of the current experience. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2015; 97: e3.

Geraghty

Kraeutler

Clark

, et al. Program and faculty reputation are valued most by applicants to orthopaedic sports medicine fellowships. Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil 2023; 5: e129–e135.

Erickson

Johnson

Grogan

, et al. Factors considered in ranking orthopedic shoulder and elbow fellowship applicants: a survey of program directors. JSES Rev Rep Tech 2021; 1: 151–154.

Tanguilig

Kraeutler

Mulcahey

. The top 10 orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship programs in the United States frequently select fellowship applicants from the same residency programs. Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil 2023; 5: e411–e414.

10.

ASES - Recognized Shoulder and Elbow Fellowship Programs - American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons [Internet] . Available from: https://www.ases-assn.org/shoulder-and-elbow-fellowships/. 2019.

11.

Orthopaedics Fellowship Match Report Program Data [Internet] . Available from: https://sfmatch.org/files/803dc1a3360f4fb8b94d44e9b58ac764.

12.

Rompala

Sudah

Miller

, et al. Predicting academic productivity among American shoulder and elbow surgeons (ASES) fellowship faculty from publications acquired before and during surgical training. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2024; 33: e523–e528.

13.

Tanguilig

Kraeutler

Mulcahey

. Most faculty members at the top orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship programs trained at many of the same programs. Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil 2023; 5: e703–e706.

14.

Belk

Littlefield

Mulcahey

, et al. Characteristics of orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship directors. Orthop J Sports Med 2021; 9: 2325967120985257.

15.

Kamalapathy

Moore

Brockmeier

, et al. Status quo: trends in diversity and unique traits among orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship directors. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2022; 30: 36–43.

16.

Schiller

Sama

Spielman

, et al. Trends in leadership at orthopaedic surgery sports medicine fellowships. World J Orthop 2021; 12: 412–422.

17.

Sanders

Neuville

, et al. Trends in leadership at shoulder and elbow fellowships: a cross-sectional demographic review. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2022; 31: e92–e100.

18.

Krueger

Helms

Bell

, et al. How the reputation of orthopaedic residency programs is associated with orthopaedic fellowship match results. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2020; 102: 28.

19.

Moore

Elahi

Doan

, et al. Orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship directors are predominantly white men with a high degree of research productivity. Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil 2021; 3: e1449–e1455.