Trends Among Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery Fellowships and Graduates

Importance Understanding differences in female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery (FPMRS) urology and gynecology-based fellowships is important because both are accredited by the American Board of Medical Subspecialties. Objective The aim of the study was to characterize urology-based and gynecology-based FPMRS fellowships. Material and Methods An institutional review board–approved 21-item survey was emailed to Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited FPMRS fellowship program directors from January 8 through March 9, 2021. The survey aimed to characterize fellowships through a series of common and specialty-specific questions. Responses were collected with Qualtrics and analyzed using STATA/MP Version 16.1. Results The response rate was 75% (52/69). Many programs accept both gynecology- and urology-trained applicants (urology-based fellowships, 45.4%; gynecology-based fellowships, 68.3%) since the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education accreditation in 2012. Within the gynecology-based cohort, there have been 10 urology-trained graduates among 7 programs (n = 1–2). Barriers to accepting urology applicants were limited gynecologic knowledge/experience (n = 14) and length of training (n = 11). Thirty-seven (94.8%) reported their graduates log more than 30 hysterectomies and 8.3% (n = 3) log 3 or more urinary diversions. Within the urology-based cohort, there have been 16 gynecology-trained graduates among 4 programs (n = 2–7). Lack of urologic clinical knowledge (n = 4) and training length (n = 2) were cited as barriers to accepting gynecology-trained applicants. Three (27%) reported that their graduates log more than 30 hysterectomies, while 8 (72.7%) reported that graduates log 3 or more urinary diversions. Conclusions Despite many FPMRS programs stating that they accept gynecology or urology-trained applicants, few fellows graduate from outside specialty FPMRS training programs. Several barriers were identified that may prevent trainees acceptance outside of their residency specialty. Procedural training experience differs between urology- and gynecology-based fellowships.