Urology remains a highly competitive and sought-after surgical subspecialty. Factors previously shown to coincide with applicant success in the residency match include United States Medical Licensing Examination scores, research experience, strong letters of recommendation and positive communication/interpersonal skills.^1,2 In addition, most senior medical students elect to complete month-long visiting subinternships.³ Many believe audition rotations help students gain additional medical/surgical knowledge, set themselves apart from their peers and, ultimately, increase the likelihood of matching at a specific program.4 In fact, both candidates and program directors rank visiting rotations as one of the most important aspects of the selection process.^1,4

We analyzed information from successful urology match participants between 2015 and 2020 to determine if training program familiarity played a role in a successful match process. Selected “familiarity” categories included applicants’ medical school, location of visiting subinternships, hometown, undergraduate schools and graduate/research programs (if applicable). Data were collected from the American Association Medical Colleges applications, UrologyMatch.com and SurveyMonkey.

Figure. “Familiarity” data for successful allopathic US urology residency applicants (2015–2020). Sub-I: subinternship.

Overall, 1,080 of 1,451 (74.4%) successful urology match candidates met one or more “familiarity” criteria (Figure). Specifically, 329 (22.7%) and 508 (35.0%) students successfully matched into their home and visiting urology training programs, respectively. Of the remaining applicants, 153 (10.5%) and 90 (6.2%) registrants matched into training programs <150 miles from their hometowns and within institutions of previous academic pursuits, respectively.

In conclusion, roughly 75% of successful urology applicants matched into either their home programs, sites of visiting subinternships, previous undergraduate/graduate institutions or training hospitals within 150 miles of their hometowns. Obviously, neither students nor program directors can change an applicant’s hometown or educational pedigree at the time of submission. However, our results provide evidence that a significant subset of candidates (35%) benefit from completing urology subinternships at programs outside of their home institution. Therefore, residency applicants should strongly consider participating in visiting rotations. Additionally, for the same reason program directors should increase the number of available subinternship positions for outside students. Finally, although the ideal number does not exist, submitting applications to a surplus of residency programs does not likely increase match success. Our findings may help urology candidates improve match outcomes by applying strategically, rather than to an ever-increasing abundance of programs.