Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Understanding Options for the Unmatched Urology Applicant

  • EDUCATION (G BADALATO AND E MARGOLIN, SECTION EDITORS)
  • Published:
Current Urology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

To evaluate recent literature regarding the pathways and options for unmatched urology applicants.

Recent Findings

Urology remains a competitive surgical sub-specialty with a match process independent of the National Resident Matching Program. Each year a cohort of competitive applicants go unmatched and are faced with the decision to reapply the following cycle while doing a research fellowship or a preliminary internship in the interim or choose a different specialty altogether. In this review, we sought to evaluate the current match process and literature regarding outcomes and options for unmatched applicants as well as to provide future directions for research and improvements to support unmatched urology applicants.

Summary

Presently, data regarding outcomes for unmatched applicants is relatively limited. Going forward it is imperative for national urology organizations to create centralized resources for applicants to provide the best possible information for applicants and mentors alike.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. American Urological Association. Match statistics - 2022 urology residency match. 2022. https://www.auanet.org/documents/education/specialty-match/2022-Urology-Residency-Match-Statistics.pdf. Accessed 14 Sep 2022.

  2. Lebastchi AH, Khouri RK Jr, McLaren ID, Faerber GJ, Kraft KH, et al. The urology applicant: an analysis of contemporary urology residency candidates. Urology. 2018;115:51–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2017.10.065.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kheir MM, Tan TL, Rondon AJ, Chen AF. The fate of unmatched orthopaedic applicants: risk factors and outcomes. JB JS Open Access. 2020;5(2):e20.00043. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.OA.20.00043.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Rivero S, Ippolito J, Martinez M, Beebe K, Benevenia J, Berberian W. Analysis of unmatched orthopaedic residency applicants: options after the match. J Grad Med Educ. 2016;8(1):91–5. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-15-00176.1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Davis TA, Yang SC. Unmatched integrated cardiothoracic surgery program applicants: where do they end up? Ann Thorac Surg. 2018;106(5):1556–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2018.03.046.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Fuller C, Byrd JK, Groves M. Outcomes of reapplication to otolaryngology residency: a prospective cohort study. Ear Nose Throat J. 2018;97(9):324–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/014556131809700922.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. • Takele R, Patel ND, Greene KL, Dobbs RW. The fate of the unmatched urology applicant. Urology. 2022:S0090–4295(22)00905–0. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2022.09.030. This study provides retrospective outcomes for unmatched urology applicants from 2008–2014, providing data for eventual career paths and outcomes by pathway for unmatched urology applicants.

  8. Society of Academic Urologists (SAU). SAU unmatched urology applicant webinar. 2022. https://sauweb.org/meetings/webinars/20210206-unmatched-webinar.aspx. Accessed 30 Sep 2022.

  9. Nikonow TN, Lyon TD, Jackman SV, Averch TD. Survey of applicant experience and cost in the urology match: opportunities for reform. J Urol. 2015;194(4):1063–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.04.074.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Tabakin AL, Srivastava A, Polotti CF, Gupta NK. The financial burden of applying to urology residency in 2020. Urology. 2021;154:62–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2021.01.013.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Carpinito GP, Khouri RK Jr, Kenigsberg AP, Ganesan V, Kuprasertkul A, Caldwell KM, Hudak SJ, Lemack GE. The virtual urology residency match process: moving beyond the pandemic. Urology. 2021;158:33–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2021.06.038.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ritchey P, Cydulka RK, Weizberg M, Crisan A, Dyne PL, Cheaito MA, Lotfipour S, Kazzi A. What if I do not match? Scrambling for a spot and going outside the match. J Emerg Med. 2020;58(2):e105–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jemermed.2019.11.025.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. National Resident Matching Program. National resident matching program, results and data: 2022 main residency match. 2022. https://www.auanet.org/documents/education/specialty-match/2022-Urology-Residency-Match-Statistics.pdf. Accessed 14 Nov 2022.

  14. The American Board of Urology. General requirements. 2022. https://www.abu.org/residency-requirements/. Accessed 14 Oct 2022.

  15. Green SA, Poole GD. Resident work hours: examining attitudes toward work-hour limits in general surgery, orthopaedics, and internal medicine. BC Med J. 2010;52(2):84–8.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Huang MM, Clifton MM. Evaluating urology residency applications: what matters most and what comes next? Curr Urol Rep. 2020;21(10):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-020-00993-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Weissbart SJ, Stock JA, Wein AJ. Program directors’ criteria for selection into urology residency. Urology. 2015;85(4):731–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2014.12.041.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ernst M, Badkhshan S. #UroStream101: social media as a medium for mentorship in urology. Urology. 2021;158:39–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2021.08.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Huang AJ, Heard JR, Sharma IK, Gold FE, Gdara O, Weinstein C, Kashani M, Winer AG. #UroSoMe: growth and innovation of the social media landscape of urology residency programs and applicants during the COVID-19 pandemic. Urological Science. 2022;33(1):14. https://doi.org/10.4103/UROS.UROS_83_21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Langston JP, Kirby EW, Nielsen ME, Smith AB, Woods ME, et al. Economic impact of training and career decisions on urological surgery. J Urol. 2014;191(3):755–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2013.09.060.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. McCormick ME, Seideman CA. Are we there yet? Doctor of osteopathic medicine students and the urology match. J Urol. 2022;208(3):517–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000002823.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Patel HV, Shaw NM, Breyer BN. Building the pipeline - mentoring success in urology. Nat Rev Urol. 2022;19(4):191–2. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41585-021-00559-w.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Cannon S, Seideman CA, Thavaseelan S, Wilson S, Zaila KE, Delgado J, Simons ECG, Dy GW. Urologists for equity: a collective approach toward diversity, equity, and inclusion in urology. Urology. 2022;162:33–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2021.07.017.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Zheng MY, Overland M, Escobar D, Fakunle M, Li Y, Chu C, Balakrishnan A, Shee K, Washington S, Hampson L. Formal mentorship as an opportunity to expand the urology pipeline: under represented trainees entering residency (UReTER) program evaluation 2020–2021. Urology. 2022;162:108–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2021.06.052.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Fantasia J, Elsamra S, Thavaseelan S. Improving The match: use of preference signaling to optimize the urology match interview process. Urology. 2021;154:57–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2021.01.042.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. •• Carpinito GP, Caldwell KM, Kenigsberg AP, Ganesan V, Khouri RK Jr, Kuprasertkul A, Hudak SJ, Lemack GE. Twitter and Instagram use in the urology residency application process. Urology. 2022;159:22–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2021.08.046. This study provides contemporary survey data from urology applicants regarding their usage and attitudes towards social media platforms during the urology match process.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Ho P, Margolin E, Sebesta E, Small A, Badalato GM. # AUAMatch: the impact of COVID-19 on social media use in the Urology Residency Match. Urology. 2021;154:50–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2021.05.019.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Heard J, Dubin J, Wyant A, Marcovich R, Loeb S. MP20–02 does social media play a role in the urology match? J Urol. 2021;206(Supplement 3):e337. https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000002005.02.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Friedman BJ, Chen I, Asantey K, Loeb S, Kim SP, Malik RD, Karabon P, Wunderlich-Barillas T, Chandrasekar T. Twitter engagement of medical students applying to urology residency during COVID-19: a mixed methods study. Urology. 2022;165:120–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2021.11.046.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. 2022–23 Urology residency application spreadsheet. 2022. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ItO2NVNH44oeTu9M0pLxSna399F6tMGi-02Q1DLCGx0/htmlview#gid=0. Accessed 30 Sep 2022.

  31. Rothfusz CA, Emara AK, Ng MK, Kunze K, Rajan PV, Siddiqi A, Piuzzi NS. The orthopaedic interview spreadsheet: classification and comparison to the national resident matching program. J Surg Educ. 2022;79(1):112–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2021.06.028.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. •• Guckien Z, Singh NP, Boyd CJ, Rais-Bahrami S. Urology residency match: trends and costs. J Urol. 2022;208(4):767–70. https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000002839. This editorial comment provides contemporary data regarding the trends in urology applicants and financial burden associated with the increased number of applications per applicant that have occurred in recent years.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Nam CS, Daignault-Newton S, Kraft KH, Herrel LA. Projected US urology workforce per capita, 2020–60. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(11):e2133864. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.33864.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. McKibben MJ, Kirby EW, Langston J, Raynor MC, Nielsen ME, Smith AB, Wallen EM, Woods ME, Pruthi RS. Projecting the urology workforce over the next 20 years. Urology. 2016;98:21–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2016.07.028.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Loughlin KR. The confluence of the aging of the American population and the aging of the urological workforce: the Parmenides fallacy. Urol Pract. 2019;6(3):198–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urpr.2018.07.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Pruthi RS, Neuwahl S, Nielsen ME, Fraher E. Recent trends in the urology workforce in the United States. Urology. 2013;82(5):987–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2013.04.080.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Saint Louis University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, MO, USA

    Shreya R. Lamba

  2. Department of Urology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA

    Casey A. Seideman

  3. Department of Urology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA

    Nishant D. Patel

  4. Division of Urology, Cook County Health and Hospitals System, 1950 W Polk St, Chicago, IL, 60612, USA

    Ryan W. Dobbs

Authors
  1. Shreya R. Lamba
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Casey A. Seideman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nishant D. Patel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ryan W. Dobbs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ryan W. Dobbs.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lamba, S.R., Seideman, C.A., Patel, N.D. et al. Understanding Options for the Unmatched Urology Applicant. Curr Urol Rep 24, 213–219 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-023-01151-y

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-023-01151-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation