Are Away Rotations Critical for a Successful Match in Orthopaedic Surgery?

  • Keith Baldwin
  • Zachary Weidner
  • Jaimo Ahn
  • Samir Mehta
Original Article

Abstract

Surveys have suggested one of the most important determinants of orthopaedic resident selection is completion of an orthopaedic clerkship at the program director’s institution. The purpose of this study was to further elucidate the significance of visiting externships on the resident selection process. We retrospectively reviewed data for all medical students applying for orthopaedic surgery residency from six medical schools between 2006 and 2008, for a total of 143 applicants. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were used to compare students who matched successfully versus those who did not in terms of number of away rotations, United States Medical Licensing Examination® scores, class rank, and other objective factors. Of the 143 medical students, 19 did not match in orthopaedics (13.3%), whereas the remaining 124 matched. On multiple logistic regression analysis, whether a student did more than one home rotation, how many away rotations a student performed, and United States Medical Licensing Examination® Step 1 score were factors in the odds of match success. Orthopaedic surgery is one of the most competitive specialties in medicine; the away rotation remains an important factor in match success.

References

  1. 1.
    Bajaj G, Carmichael KD. What attributes are necessary to be selected for an orthopaedic surgery residency position: perceptions of faculty and residents. South Med J. 2004;97:1179–1185.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bernstein AD, Jazrawi LM, Elbeshbeshy B, Della Valle CJ, Zuckerman JD. Orthopaedic resident-selection criteria. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84:2090–2096.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Clark R, Evans EB, Ivey FM, Calhoun JH, Hokanson JA. Characteristics of successful and unsuccessful applicants to orthopedic residency training programs. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989;241:257–264.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Donini-Lenhoff F, ed. Graduate Medical Education Directory. Chicago, IL: American Medical Association; 2000–2001:181.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hsieh FY, Bloch DA, Larsen MD. A simple method of sample size calculation for linear and logistic regression. Stat Med. 1998;17:1623–1634.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lostumbo EM, Beran RL. Results of the National Resident Matching Program for 2002. Acad Med. 2002;77:587–590.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    National Resident Matching Program and Association of American Medical Colleges. Charting Outcomes in the Match. Available at: http://www.nrmp.org/data/chartingoutcomes2007.pdf. Accessed July 27, 2008.
  8. 8.
    Scherl SA, Lively N, Simon MA. Initial review of Electronic Residency Application Service charts by orthopaedic residency faculty members: does applicant gender matter? J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83:65–70.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Signer MM, Beran RL. Results of the National Resident Matching Program for 2005. Acad Med. 2005;80:610–612.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Simon MA. The education of future orthopaedists: deja vu. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83:1416–1423.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wagoner NE, Suriano JR. Program directors’ responses to a survey on variables used to select residents in a time of change. Acad Med. 1999;74:51–58.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons® 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Keith Baldwin
    • 1
  • Zachary Weidner
    • 2
  • Jaimo Ahn
    • 1
  • Samir Mehta
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryHospital of the University of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Orthopaedic SurgerySt Lukes-Roosevelt HospitalNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations