Retina vs Cornea for fellowship

[MastahRiz]

Hey everyone,

Just curious- if you had to pick between retina or cornea for a fellowship which way would you go?

I'd also love to hear any comments as to why you'd go that route, be it lifestyle, interest, coin toss etc, etc.

Thanks in advance.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Visionary]

Hey everyone,

Just curious- if you had to pick between retina or cornea for a fellowship which way would you go?

I'd also love to hear any comments as to why you'd go that route, be it lifestyle, interest, coin toss etc, etc.

Thanks in advance.

Too biased to vote, but must say this is a strange poll. Cornea and retina are very different subspecialties. Different lifestyles, different procedure sets, different pathology, etc. I've heard of others trying to decide between the two, but have never really understood it. From a pure business perspective, the financials are obviously much better with retina. Cornea is less competitive, fellowship-wise, though. Job market is closer, but still favors retina. Cornea will typically allow you to practice more comprehensive, if that's important to you. Of course, a lot of cornea-trained docs I know basically don't use their fellowship training much anymore. They practice pretty much as comprehensive docs. Interesting....

 

[MastahRiz]

Great input- I have to agree that both are extremely different but I also often come across people trying to decide between both of these. I wish I could also poll what kind of factors people let influence their decision. So far I've made all academic and career choices based solely on interest, but I don't often find many others who "limit" their thinking to that one regard. Like you said, lifestyle, competitive nature, and compensation weigh heavily on many people.

You mentioned that many cornea-trained docs don't end up using their training that regularly--- that's something I never even thought of in the long run!

Thanks again for the feedback- very much appreciated.

 

[vtrain]

Too biased to vote, but must say this is a strange poll. Cornea and retina are very different subspecialties. Different lifestyles, different procedure sets, different pathology, etc. I've heard of others trying to decide between the two, but have never really understood it. From a pure business perspective, the financials are obviously much better with retina. Cornea is less competitive, fellowship-wise, though. Job market is closer, but still favors retina. Cornea will typically allow you to practice more comprehensive, if that's important to you. Of course, a lot of cornea-trained docs I know basically don't use their fellowship training much anymore. They practice pretty much as comprehensive docs. Interesting....

I agree, this is a strange comparison, but I was caught between these two as well. In the end, I enjoy comprehensive too much and I was sold after my first cataract as a second year. Knowing that I'd give up these two things in retina ultimately led to my switch.

Ive seen this phenomenon as well and it's a little disheartening, albeit understandable.Talking with some private cornea guys, they tell me to go into retina. But then when I say I want to do uveitis as well, they think I'm nuts. Ah well, gotta go with what you love...

 

[dantt]

Why do the private cornea guys say that? And are they practicing cornea or more comprehensive?

 

[MR1]

I am retina, so obviously biased. It is an odd comparison since they are very different fields but everyone has there likes. Me I never liked cornea.

Cornea is nice in that you can continue to do cataracts and maybe a mix of comprehensive stuff. Retina not so much here although I have heard of folks having a mix, it just doens't make sense here. Retina is 2 yrs more, cornea 1 but the job market and pay favors retina now. Retina is more competitive as previously mentioned. Both are advancing a ton surgically with new things coming out. I like retina patients more though, they are more realistic, cornea patients always want to see 20/20 after that PK or DSAEK. Granted retina doesnt have the wow factor after surgery for the most part. Retina is busier and more unpredictable although with cornea you still get the perforated ulcers, etc. Some retina clinics can get boring if you are running an injection assembly line that day.

Me I like the surgical diversity of retina, the pathology, being "where the buck stops" (no one else really does what retina does), the pay (of course), marketability for jobs, the patients, lasers, looking at FA's, OCT's. For me it never was a question though. Good luck

 

[MstaKing10]

I agree with most of above. Cornea is nicer in terms of fellowship (not as competitive) and perhaps lifestyle. There is a lot of interesting technology emerging which may make it a bit more lucrative and a refractive type practice can be quite profitable. I just never saw myself doing that kind of thing nor did I find it interesting or rewarding. Retina offers so much variety both surgically and clinically. The breadth of pathology and amount/type of surgery in retina is exciting for a pseudo thrill seeker like myself.

 

[MastahRiz]

^Sounds a lot more like what I would want too. I would get bored doing the same thing over and over.

Thanks for your input, much appreciated.

 

[Visionary]

^Sounds a lot more like what I would want too. I would get bored doing the same thing over and over.

Thanks for your input, much appreciated.

Just so you know, do anything for 10 or so years, and you're doing the same thing over and over. It's sort of sad, but you'll never again experience the kind of newness and wonder that you will in residency, fellowship, and the first few years of your own practice. Still, you definitely need to pick something you like. Having your job suck, then become repetitive...ugh.

 

[FutureOph123]

I agree with most of above. Cornea is nicer in terms of fellowship (not as competitive) and perhaps lifestyle. There is a lot of interesting technology emerging which may make it a bit more lucrative and a refractive type practice can be quite profitable. I just never saw myself doing that kind of thing nor did I find it interesting or rewarding. Retina offers so much variety both surgically and clinically. The breadth of pathology and amount/type of surgery in retina is exciting for a pseudo thrill seeker like myself.

I have to stick up for cornea here... I think both fields are great, and the "buck" often does stop with retina, but... variety? I think AMD probably makes up 70% plus of many practices, then vein occlusions, RD, DM, etc. It's a great field, but common things being common... not too many white dot syndromes running around... and unless you are doing endoscopic vitrectomy, you still need a clear view 🙂 I think whatever you do there will be a certain rhythm. If you like retina then do it... if you like cornea then do it (but most cornea specialists are doing mainly general)...

 

[MastahRiz]

Thanks for the tips everyone. Appreciate all the feedback!