Poster 154: Top Orthopaedic Sports Medicine Fellowship Programs as Perceived by Applicants

Objectives: Despite the high volume of orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship applicants and growing interest in the field, fellowship applicants’ attitudes and preferences towards programs are not well known. The objectives of this study were to determine the top orthopaedic surgery sports medicine fellowship programs in the United States and the most important aspects of fellowship programs as perceived by applicants. Methods: An anonymous survey was distributed via email and text message to all individuals who applied to one particular orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship program during the 2017-18 through 2021-22 application cycles. The survey asked applicants to rank what they considered to be the top-10 orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship programs in the United States prior to and after completion of their application cycle, based on operative and nonoperative experience, faculty, game coverage, research, and work/life balance. Final rank was calculated by awarding 10 points for a 1 st place vote, 9 points for a 2 nd place vote, etc., with total number of points used to determine final ranking for each program. Secondary outcomes included application patterns, relative importance of different fellowship program aspects, and preferred type of practice. Results: Ninety-three surveys were completed overall. Based on total numbers of points, applicants voted the top orthopaedic sports medicine fellowships programs to be: 1) the Steadman Philippon Research Institute, 2) Rush University, and 3) Hospital for Special Surgery, both prior to and following the application cycle (Table 1). Forty-two percent of applicants applied to all of their perceived top-10 programs with 66% of respondents applying to at least 8 of their top-10 programs. Interestingly, 10% of applicants applied to 4 or fewer of their top-10 programs. Of those who did not apply to all programs in their top-10, 92% thought the program did not fit their preferences and 47% thought they were not competitive for those programs. When asked to rank programs upon completion of the application cycle, each of the top-10 programs prior to the application cycle remained in the top-10 (Table 1). Nearly all of the applicants agreed/strongly agreed (99%) that the personalities of the attendings they met on their interviews influenced their rank list decision upon completion of the application cycle. When ranking fellowship program aspects, fellowship reputation and faculty members were most likely to be ranked highest in importance. Factors such as research opportunities, private practice versus academic setting, and number of fellows were all more likely to be ranked last in importance (Table 2). Most applicants (83%) applied to both academic and private practice programs. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that most orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship applicants highly valued program reputation and faculty member personalities in choosing a fellowship program and that the application/interview process did not have a significant effect on how individuals perceive the top programs. The findings of this study may have significant implications on future application cycles and the programs to which potential applicants may apply. [Table: see text][Table: see text]