Rank the vascular surgery 0+5 programs

[Blue Rover]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Anyone care to rank the 0+5/3+3 vascular programs?

Dartmouth
University of Michigan (Ann Arbor)
University of North Carolina (Chapel Hill)
University of Pittsburgh
University of South Florida (Tampa)
SUNY Stony Brook
Mount Sinai
University of Rochester

 

[Castro Viejo]

Anyone care to rank the 0+5/3+3 vascular programs?

Dartmouth
University of Michigan (Ann Arbor)
University of North Carolina (Chapel Hill)
University of Pittsburgh
University of South Florida (Tampa)
SUNY Stony Brook
Mount Sinai
University of Rochester

Hmmm... I interviewed at most of those places (all but Pittsburgh, actually) for the fellowship. The way I'd personally rank them would be:

Pittsburgh > Michigan > Dartmouth > Rochester > North Carolina > South Florida > Stony Brook > Mount Sinai

If you'd like to know why, PM me.

But you should refrain from making judgement until you've visited all of them. And of course my personal preferences may be very different from yours.

 

[Amgen1]

are many students applying to these programs? I am interested to see how this progresses over the next several yrs. are these spots available with the regular match or are they an early match?

 

[Castro Viejo]

are many students applying to these programs? I am interested to see how this progresses over the next several yrs. are these spots available with the regular match or are they an early match?

These spots are available through the regular NRMP Match held in March.

They appear to be quite competitive, although I'm unclear how telling this is considering there's only 9 spots between them. This follows a trend that the 2 year fellowship has become relatively competitive as well.

Seems like Vascular Surgery might be entering its golden age. 🙂

 

[HitGirl]

*bump*

Now that there are about 25 programs 0+5 vascular programs I wonder if anyone has any further thoughts about rankings??

 

[jinascalpel]

Can someone please explain how the independent 3+3 pathway works? Is this informal? I haven't found a comprehensive list on the acgme website, but the acgme is still renewing accreditation for these programs.

I'd also love to hear if anyone has any info on the strength of Lenox Hill. They had a lot of people involved in the CREST trial, and strong interventional cards, thats all I know.

Finally has anyone heard through the grape-vine if any new programs are applying for accreditation, for the 0+5?

 

[mitchconnie]

Can someone please explain how the independent 3+3 pathway works? Is this informal? I haven't found a comprehensive list on the acgme website, but the acgme is still renewing accreditation for these programs.

I'd also love to hear if anyone has any info on the strength of Lenox Hill. They had a lot of people involved in the CREST trial, and strong interventional cards, thats all I know.

Finally has anyone heard through the grape-vine if any new programs are applying for accreditation, for the 0+5?

To my knowledge, there are no current 3+3 programs. It is an RRC approved training pathway, but no programs have followed through. For whatever reason, everyone decided to jump on the 0+5 bandwagon.

I have no direct knowledge of Lenox Hill, but would simply note that a very strong interventional cardiology program is not necessarily a big plus for vascular surgery.

I get the impression that a lot of 5+2 programs plan to transition to 0+5 within the next 2-3 years, simply because it becomes harder to compete for the best applicants as a 5+2.

 

[jinascalpel]

To my knowledge, there are no current 3+3 programs. It is an RRC approved training pathway, but no programs have followed through. For whatever reason, everyone decided to jump on the 0+5 bandwagon.

I have no direct knowledge of Lenox Hill, but would simply note that a very strong interventional cardiology program is not necessarily a big plus for vascular surgery.

I get the impression that a lot of 5+2 programs plan to transition to 0+5 within the next 2-3 years, simply because it becomes harder to compete for the best applicants as a 5+2.

totally agree Re: interventional cardiology. Although, I can't imagine a better person to learn CAS from than Gary Roubin if there is any cross-department training. That being said if they lock the vascular service out of the angio-suites it could be a nightmare

I'm applying for 2011-2012, so hoping more programs are currently in the pipe-line. The RRC only meets 2 more times before the next interview cycle

thanks for the reply

 

[Castro Viejo]

To my knowledge, there are no current 3+3 programs. It is an RRC approved training pathway, but no programs have followed through. For whatever reason, everyone decided to jump on the 0+5 bandwagon.

I have no direct knowledge of Lenox Hill, but would simply note that a very strong interventional cardiology program is not necessarily a big plus for vascular surgery.

I get the impression that a lot of 5+2 programs plan to transition to 0+5 within the next 2-3 years, simply because it becomes harder to compete for the best applicants as a 5+2.

How do you figure that?

The conversations I've had with a number of PDs would lead me to believe that they're pretty firmly committed to keeping the 5+2 track alive.

And if the latest numbers available are any indication it seems that many 0+5 residents eligible to take the Surgical Principles Exam (the first step in becoming board eligible in vascular surgery) aren't prepared.

 

[mitchconnie]

The conversations I've had with a number of PDs would lead me to believe that they're pretty firmly committed to keeping the 5+2 track alive.

I didn't say that the 5+2 is going away--as you mentioned, there are a fair number of people who think that the 0+5 will fail and everyone will go back to 5+2 in ten years.

But the dynamics of the last couple application cycles are hard to ignor. Not a lot of applicants for the 5+2, and large numbers of top-quality applicants for the uber-competitive 0+5. Plus, a lot of the bellweather programs and specialty leaders (like the immediate past president of the SVS) have gone to the 0+5. So I think a lot of other programs will basically fall in line. Certainly not all, but I'm betting at least half the VS programs will be 0+5 in 3-4 years. As a PD, if you aren't at least looking at the 0+5, you are yesterday's news.

Whether the 0+5 is the best training paradigm is a different question, and I'd be interested in seeing the surgical principles results if you have the link. I don't understand why any 0+5 residents would be taking the surgical principles exam though, since those programs have only been around for 2 years.

 

[arikon]

*bump*

Now that there are about 25 programs 0+5 vascular programs I wonder if anyone has any further thoughts about rankings??

ok if any one can rank these programs, ?thank you

 

[Castro Viejo]

Whether the 0+5 is the best training paradigm is a different question, and I'd be interested in seeing the surgical principles results if you have the link. I don't understand why any 0+5 residents would be taking the surgical principles exam though, since those programs have only been around for 2 years.

I'm not sure I understand the necessity of 0+5 residents taking a "surgical principles exam" either. It is essentially made up of General Surgery QE questions written for Gen Surg grads, and other surgical subspecialties don't require their trainees to take a similar exam. Of course the difference is that those other subspecialties (Ortho, Nsx, ENT, all have their own specialty boards and vascular surgery is still a part of the ABS).

The only link that is publicly available is the latest newsletter of the VSB-ABS:

http://home.absurgery.org/xfer/vsbnewsletter10.pdf

33% is kind of bad for a pass rate, no matter what exam you're talking about. Either the exam is impossibly difficult (which shouldn't be the case since these questions are derived from the Gen Surg QE) or the examinees have not been trained in such a way that's useful for the exam.

 

[Castro Viejo]

ok if any one can rank these programs, ?thank you

It's sort of impossible to rank any of these programs since the oldest ones are only four years old, so what's the metric one should examine? None of them have a track record as 0+5 training programs yet.

Board pass rates?
Number of publications of the faculty? Of the residents?
Number of cases the residents do in five years?
Jobs?
Number of trials the faculties are part of?

Obviously some of these programs are at better known places than others in the vascular surgery world, but that may not mean anything to some and mean everything to others.

 

[willstent4food]

i read the comments regarding what people thought about the 0+5 route from 2007... just wondering if any of the residents or attendings can comment on any changes in opinions regarding the integrated track or any observations since then.