Katz Abigail, Oleru Olachi, Wang Anya, Seyidova Nargiz, Mandelbaum Max, Melamed Eitan, Taub Peter J
From the Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2025 Apr 1;155(4):704e-713e. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000011793. Epub 2024 Oct 1.
Postresidency fellowship training has become increasingly popular as a career option. Specifically, the subspecialty of aesthetic surgery has grown tremendously over the past 2 decades within several fields, including plastic and reconstructive surgery (PRS), otolaryngology, dermatology, and ophthalmology. However, the popularity of aesthetic specialization through fellowship remains unknown. The present study aims to analyze trends in aesthetic specialization across these specialties and compare its popularity to other fellowships.
A retrospective review of data from the San Francisco Match, National Resident Matching Program, American Society for Dermatologic Surgery, and the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education was performed. Data on graduating residents and applicants to fellowship were collected. Analysis of variance and t tests were used to compare differences between groups.
Significant disparities were observed in applicants and matched applicants to aesthetic fellowships among the 4 residencies ( P < 0.001). Aesthetic fellowship was the most popular option after otolaryngology residency (12.5% to 27%, depending on the year) and the second most popular choice after PRS (8% to 17%) and dermatology (2% to 5%). A comparison between PRS and otolaryngology demonstrated a significantly higher percentage of the latter choosing aesthetic fellowship over time ( P < 0.001). However, no significant difference in applicants to aesthetic fellowship was found between dermatology and ophthalmology ( t test, P = 0.060).
The number of applicants to aesthetic fellowship has increased over time across all eligible residencies with the more surgery-heavy specialties (otolaryngology and PRS) having the highest percentage of applicants. Differences in aesthetic training between fields was also observed, which may reflect underlying variations in training and residency exposure.
