The Student You Know: Orthopedic Surgery Home Program Match Rates and Geographic Relationships Before and After COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: In March 2020, COVID-19 was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization. This led to the outright cancellation of away rotations and in person residency interviews for the class of 2021. This study aims to identify the geographic relationships in the orthopedic match and further explore COVID-19's effect on these geographic relationships. Furthermore, we aim to compare the home program match rates before and after COVID-19. SETTING: Southern Illinois University School of Medicine, Department of Orthopedic Surgery (tertiary, university-based). DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Residency websites and social media sites were used to record basic residency information as well as each resident's year, matriculated medical school, and matriculated medical school geographic data. This information was used to evaluate the proportion of orthopedic residents from "home program" medical schools and evaluate the geographic relationship of matched orthopedic residents. 202 Orthopedic residencies were initially identified and 134 allopathic and nonmilitary residency programs met the inclusion criteria. In all, 3253 of the 3931 (82.7%) current U.S orthopedic residents were included in the analysis. RESULTS: In the 4 orthopedic surgery residency classes before the pandemic (2017-2020), 21.8% of residency slots were filled by home program students. During the pandemic match cycle (2021), this number jumped to 28.2% (p < 0.0006). The increase was observed consistently across residency subgroup analysis: class size, doximity rank, and doximity research rank. Correspondingly, there was a statistically significant increase from 34.7% (2017-2020) to 39.3% (2021) (p = 0.0318) in residencies matching with same state medical students. Regional trends stayed consistent. Our study showed that residency programs matched applicants who went to same region medical schools during the 2020 to 2021 cycle at nearly the exact same rate as they did pre-pandemic (63.6%, up from 63.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates that despite widespread virtual away rotations and virtual open houses, residency programs showed an increased preference for their home program students. This trend was significant and widespread, highlighting the generalized nationwide hesitation of both residency programs and students on the virtual interview process.

Proximity of the Neurovascular Bundle During Posterior-Lateral Meniscal Repair: A Comparison of the Transpatellar, Anteromedial, and Anterolateral Portals.

PURPOSE: To compare the neurovascular proximity of the transpatellar portal with that of the medial and lateral portals and to determine the safe penetration depth for an all-inside device for use on the posterior horn lateral meniscus. METHODS: Dissection of the popliteal fossa was performed in 10 cadaveric knees to identify all structures. Arthroscopy was performed using penetration depths of 10, 12, 14, and 16 mm with the all-inside system through the anteromedial, anterolateral, and transpatellar portals. Penetrations were made 5 and 10 mm lateral to the posterior horn root at the meniscocapsular junction. Needle-tip distances were measured from the popliteal artery and vein, tibial nerve, and common peroneal nerve. RESULTS: Among 240 trials, the average distance to the popliteal neurovascular bundle using the medial, transpatellar, and lateral approaches was 6.9 mm, 6.5 mm, and 3.1 mm, respectively. The transpatellar-portal needle had a larger distance from the neurovascular bundle than the lateral portal (P = .001), with no statistical difference compared with the medial portal (P = .58). Compared with the position at a 10-mm distance from the root, the position at a 5-mm distance from the root was closer to the neurovascular bundle in all approaches (P = .001). The transpatellar approach set to 14 mm had a 5% rate of capsular underpenetration and 10% rate of gastrocnemius penetration. The transpatellar and medial portals had no neurovascular penetrations, whereas the lateral approach had a 14% rate of penetration (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: The transpatellar portal and anteromedial portal are in less proximity to the neurovascular bundle compared with the anterolateral portal for all-inside meniscal repair of the posterior horn lateral meniscus. Low rates of neurovascular penetration, gastrocnemius muscle penetration, and capsular underpenetration occurred with a depth setting of 14 mm. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study shows the utility of medial and transpatellar portals when using all-inside devices to repair posterior horn lateral meniscal tears and neurovascular proximity based on penetration depth.