Trends in Aesthetic Surgery Fellowship Training: An Analysis of Supply and Demand

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Aesthetic surgery fellowship applications were consolidated under the San Francisco Match in 2018. The impact of these changes on aesthetic program and applicant numbers had not yet been investigated. OBJECTIVES: In this study we sought to evaluate changes in programs, positions, applications, match rates, and fill rates since aesthetic surgery joined the San Francisco Match. We also aimed to compare these trends to craniofacial surgery, microsurgery, and hand surgery fellowships over this same time period. METHODS: San Francisco and National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) match data for aesthetic, craniofacial, microsurgery, and hand fellowships were obtained from 2018 to 2022, and the number of applications, positions, programs, and successful matches were evaluated. RESULTS: The number of aesthetic fellowship positions increased from 17 to 41 (141%) over the period studied. This resulted in increased match rates and more unfilled positions. Over the same period, fellowship positions for craniofacial, hand, and microsurgery increased by 3.4%, 6%, and 2.5% respectively. There was no increase in applications to any postgraduate subspecialty, nor was there any change in the number of residents pursuing fellowship. Similarly, there was no change in the percentage of fellowship-bound residents applying to any given discipline. CONCLUSIONS: The increase in aesthetic fellowship programs and positions did not generate an increase in applications. Applications to other plastic surgery subspecialties also failed to increase. Unlike aesthetic fellowships, their program numbers have remained stable. Given the limited fellowship applicant pool, our focus should be on enhancing the quality of existing aesthetic programs rather than continuing to increase the number of aesthetic positions.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 10 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.