Cost of the Otolaryngology Residency Application Process: Comparison With Other Specialties and Equity Implications.

Objective: This study aims to assess trends in applicant-reported costs of the otolaryngology residency application process between 2019 and 2021 and evaluate the impact of application costs on number of interview offers. Study Design: Cross-sectional study. Setting: US allopathic and osteopathic medical schools. Methods: Survey data from applicants were obtained from the Texas STAR database (Seeking Transparency in Application to Residency) for the years 2019 to 2021. Outcomes included total cost, interview cost, other costs, application fees, and number of interview offers. Simple and multivariable linear regression was used to identify novel predictors of cost and assess the correlation between cost and interview offers. Results: Among 363 otolaryngology applicants, there was a 74% reduction in total costs and a 97% reduction in interview costs in the 2021 cycle vs the 2020 cycle. Significant predictors of total cost among otolaryngology applicants included the number of away rotations (P < .01), the number of research experiences (P = .04), and couples matching (P < .01). During the 2019 and 2020 application cycles, there was a significant association between applicant-reported total spending and number of otolaryngology interview offers (P < .01), which was not present during the 2021 cycle (P = .35). Conclusion: Number of otolaryngology interview offers appears to be directly correlated with applicant-reported total costs regardless of number of applications or interviews attended, which may be a source of inequality in the application process. There was a drastic reduction in total costs, interview costs, and other costs during the COVID-19 pandemic, which was likely driven by virtual interviewing and the absence of away rotations.

Effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the residency match among surgical specialties.

BACKGROUND: Despite unprecedented changes to undergraduate medical education and the residency selection process during the COVID-19 pandemic, there is little objective evidence on how the pandemic affected match outcomes such as matched applicant characteristics, interview distribution, geographic clustering, and associated costs. We investigated COVID-19's impact on the residency match by comparing surgery applicants' characteristics, interview distribution, and related costs from 2018 to 2020 to 2021. METHODS: Data from the Texas Seeking Transparency in Applications to Residency initiative were analyzed. Descriptive statistics, bivariate testing, and sensitivity analysis were performed to compare matched applicants in surgical specialties from 2018-2020 to 2021. RESULTS: This study included 5,258 applicants who matched into 10 surgical specialties from 2018 to 2021. In 2021, there was a decrease in proportion of students who reported a geographic connection to their matched program (38.4% vs 42.1%; P = .021) and no significant difference in number of interviews attended (mean [SD], 13.1 [6.2] vs 13.3 [4.7]; P = .136) compared to prior years. Applicants in 2021 had more research experiences and fewer honored clerkships (both P < .001), and these associations persisted in sensitivity analysis. Matched applicants in 2021 reported significantly lower total costs associated with the residency application process compared to 2018 to 2020 (mean [SD] $1,959 [1,275] vs $6,756 [4,081]; P < .001). CONCLUSION: Although COVID-19 appeared to result in a reduction in number of honored clerkships, it may have provided more opportunities for students to engage in research. Overall, the adoption of virtual interviews and away rotations may have successfully mitigated some of the adverse consequences of the pandemic on the residency match for surgical specialties.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the 2021 Otolaryngology Residency Match: Analysis of the Texas STAR Database.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To estimate the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on the 2021 otolaryngology match with regard to geographic clustering, interview distribution, applicant-reported costs, and matched applicant characteristics. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. METHODS: Survey data from applicants to otolaryngology residency programs were obtained from the Texas Seeking Transparency in Applications to Residency database. Applicant differences between the 2021 match year and prior match years (2018, 2019, and 2020) were analyzed using two-sided t-tests, Chi-square tests, and Fisher's exact tests. RESULTS: A total of 442 otolaryngology residency applicants responded to the survey, including 329 from the match years 2018 to 2020 and 113 from match year 2021. In 2021, 30.7% of responding applicants reported matching at a program where they had a geographic connection, compared to 40.0% in prior years (P = .139). Matched applicants in 2021 reported attending less interviews than applicants in prior years (mean 12.2 vs. 13.3, P = .040), and 26.1% of responding applicants reported matching at a program where they sent a preference signal. Applicants in the 2021 match reported significantly lower total costs than applicants in prior years (mean difference -$5,496, 95% confidence interval -$6,234 to -$4,759; P < .001). Compared to prior match years, matched applicants in 2021 had no meaningful differences in characteristics such as United States Medical Licensing Exam board scores, clerkship grades, honors society memberships, research output, volunteer experiences, or leadership experiences. CONCLUSION: Based on this sample, there was no evidence of significant interview hoarding or increased geographic clustering in the 2021 otolaryngology match, and the COVID-19 pandemic did not appear to result in significantly different matched applicant characteristics. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Laryngoscope, 132:1177-1183, 2022.

Quantification of Aerosol Particle Concentrations During Endoscopic Sinonasal Surgery in the Operating Room.

BACKGROUND: Recent indirect evidence of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission during endoscopic endonasal procedures has highlighted the dearth of knowledge surrounding aerosol generation with these procedures. As we adapt to function in the era of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) a better understanding of how surgical techniques generate potentially infectious aerosolized particles will enhance the safety of operating room (OR) staff and learners. OBJECTIVE: To provide greater understanding of possible SARS-CoV-2 exposure risk during endonasal surgeries by quantifying increases in airborne particle concentrations during endoscopic sinonasal surgery. METHODS: Aerosol concentrations were measured during live-patient endoscopic endonasal surgeries in ORs with an optical particle sizer. Measurements were taken throughout the procedure at six time points: 1) before patient entered the OR, 2) before pre-incision timeout during OR setup, 3) during cold instrumentation with suction, 4) during microdebrider use, 5) during drill use and, 6) at the end of the case prior to extubation. Measurements were taken at three different OR position: surgeon, circulating nurse, and anesthesia provider. RESULTS: Significant increases in airborne particle concentration were measured at the surgeon position with both the microdebrider (p = 0.001) and drill (p = 0.001), but not for cold instrumentation with suction (p = 0.340). Particle concentration did not significantly increase at the anesthesia position or the circulator position with any form of instrumentation. Overall, the surgeon position had a mean increase in particle concentration of 2445 particles/ft3 (95% CI 881 to 3955; p = 0.001) during drill use and 1825 particles/ft3 (95% CI 641 to 3009; p = 0.001) during microdebrider use. CONCLUSION: Drilling and microdebrider use during endonasal surgery in a standard operating room is associated with a significant increase in airborne particle concentrations. Fortunately, this increase in aerosol concentration is localized to the area of the operating surgeon, with no detectable increase in aerosol particles at other OR positions.

Quantification of Aerosol Concentrations During Endonasal Instrumentation in the Clinic Setting.

OBJECTIVE: Recent anecdotal reports and cadaveric simulations have described aerosol generation during endonasal instrumentation, highlighting a possible risk for transmission of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) during endoscopic endonasal instrumentation. This study aims to provide a greater understanding of particle generation and exposure risk during endoscopic endonasal instrumentation. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective quantification of aerosol generation during office-based nasal endoscopy procedures. METHODS: Using an optical particle sizer, airborne particles concentrations 0.3 to 10 microns in diameter, were measured during 30 nasal endoscopies in the clinic setting. Measurements were taken at time points throughout diagnostic and debridement endoscopies and compared to preprocedure and empty room particle concentrations. RESULTS: No significant change in airborne particle concentrations was measured during diagnostic nasal endoscopies in patients without the need for debridement. However, significant increases in mean particle concentration compared to preprocedure levels were measured during cold instrumentation at 2,462 particles/foot3 (95% CI 837 to 4,088; P = .005) and during suction use at 2,973 particle/foot3 (95% CI 1,419 to 4,529; P = .001). In total, 99.2% of all measured particles were ≤1 µm in diameter. CONCLUSION: When measured with an optical particle sizer, diagnostic nasal endoscopy with a rigid endoscope is not associated with increased particle aerosolization in patient for whom sinonasal debridement is not needed. In patients needing sinonasal debridement, endonasal cold and suction instrumentation were associated with increased particle aerosolization, with a trend observed during endoscope use prior to tissue manipulation. Endonasal debridement may potentially pose a higher risk for aerosolization and SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Appropriate personal protective equipment use and patient screening are recommended for all office-based endonasal procedures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Laryngoscope, 131:E1415-E1421, 2021.