Mid-tier cornea fellowship programs

[Rhexis]

I have a good sense for what the top 10-15 fellowship programs are in cornea, but don't have much information at all about the mid-tier programs. If anybody has information on any of the following cornea programs, I'd love it if you could respond here or shoot me a message. Any help would be appreciated. I've searched these forums extensively but most threads just talk about the top programs. I'm mainly interested in programs with a more clinical/surgical emphasis, rather than a research heavy program. Not opposed to research, just want the focus to be operating and patient care.

- UC Irvine
- U of Colorado
- U of Florida
- Tulane
- Albany
- Columbia
- Mount Sinai
- New York Eye and Ear
- Ross Eye Institute (Buffalo)
- U of Rochester
- Casey
- Pittsburgh
- UTSW
- U of Wisconsin
- Cincinnati
- Ohio State
- Wake Forest
- North Carolina
- USC
- U of Missouri
- Wash U

Good luck to everybody applying to fellowship this year. I can't believe the time to apply is coming so soon. Hope to see a bunch of you on the interview trail!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[LightBox]

Completely personal opinion of the programs that I know something about or via the grapevine. This is regarding the clinical/surgical training

Great programs
- U of Colorado - this is actually a top-tier Cornea fellowship. I'm pretty sure they have one of the highest refractive volumes in a Cornea fellowship
- Casey - also another top-tier Cornea fellowship with a well-rounded experience

Pretty busy programs
- UC Irvine - do a decent # of transplants; low refractive; medium cataracts; Steinert's departure may be an issue
- Tulane - known to have have a high surgical and clinical volume; not sure about the "formal" learning
- Wash U - friendly attendings; low refractive; okay transplant #'s
- Cincinnati - get exposed to stuff that you normally don't find at many Cornea programs (e.g. limbal stem cell transplants; lots of ocular reconstruction); no/low refractive exposure

Lower volume programs
- U of Rochester
- UTSW - basically no cataracts (residents get them all); average transplant #'s; low-teen in refractive
- U of Wisconsin - only 1 surgical full-time attending

Don't know anything about them
- U of Florida
- Albany
- Columbia
- Mount Sinai
- New York Eye and Ear
- Ross Eye Institute (Buffalo)
- Pittsburgh
- Ohio State
- Wake Forest
- North Carolina
- USC
- U of Missouri

 

[Rhexis]

Thanks for the thorough response! Great information.

 

[DrZeke]

Thanks for the thorough response! Great information.

Not so sure that's true about Tulane's volume...

 

[Dusn]

I've hear that mount Sinai is not very good from one of its former fellows. NYEE used to have 2 fellowships in cornea. Both being malignant without very good training. Generally the better programs are in the Midwest or the south, such as Colorado.

 

[dan385]

What about some of the less academic programs in New York like downstate, north shore, OCLI. Do any have good volume?

 

[taco bell]

I too will be applying for cornea this year. Whats the consensus on gauging competiveness this year? lot of resident interest in your respective programs?

 

[therealmccoy3]

I too will be applying for cornea this year. Whats the consensus on gauging competiveness this year? lot of resident interest in your respective programs?

I'm a 3rd year going into glaucoma. Last year at my mid-sized program we had 1 go in to cornea. This year we have 2; I was talking with both of them today at lunch. They made it sound like an average year in terms of competitiveness, but I'm not sure why they think that.

Cornea shouldn't be too competitive nowadays though, if you think about it. They don't make nearly as much as retina or plastics, and job prospects are very dismal when compared to glaucoma, pediatrics, or neuro. Our previous cornea fellow desperately tried to get a job in cornea, but she ended up taking a general job. For these reasons I don't think you have to worry about cornea being too competitive.

 

[idoktor]

UTSW has 30-50 phacos for corneal fellows, mainly complicated ones with zonular dehiscence, post PK, triple procedures. Also some straight forward attending private cases. Transplant numbers are average but starting to do more DMEKs now. Refractive numbers in the teens agreed.

 

[eyemd00]

I would add Oklahoma to your list- great clinical and surgical program though some recent faculty turnover

Agreed on Cincinnati - great PK and phaco numbers+ complex ocular surface exposure w/ Holland, no refractive exposure

Also add Hamilton (Atlanta) to your list for great clinical and surgical experience (~100 DSAEK, ~ 50 PKP, 100-200 phacos+ good refractive volume)

I thought ohio state was a solid middle tier program with avg. numbers and nice facilities (call may be a little busy though and all current faculty trained under the same Chairman which may compromise the multitude of perspectives that are available in other programs)

Wash U- solid middle tier program with average numbers and a ton of department resources + the big name

Buffalo- lower middle tier with a fantastic Mentor (Reidy) and average surgical numbers- the location may be an issue for some

USC- good middle tier program just coming out on the good side of the big split between doheny and USC- solid numbers but going back up to 2 fellows a year may impact some of the clinical and surgical experience

U of Missouri- New cornea chairman is young, energetic and awesome (does a lot w/ cryo for ocular surface cancers) + turns over a lot of cases to Fellows... seemed like a pretty up and coming program

Be weary of most of the NYC programs as clinical and surgical experience tend to not be as strong as other areas of the country

All above is my personal opinion which can vary widely from person to person depending on what you are looking for in a program

Also, these programs can drastically change from year to year, so be sure to talk to the current fellow wherever you seriously consider

Most programs that are AUPO certified are pretty safe bets as middle tier

 

[Rhexis]

Excellent replies everybody, very helpful!!

 

[dantt]

I have a good sense for what the top 10-15 fellowship programs are in cornea, but don't have much information at all about the mid-tier programs.

I'm not sure I know what those top programs are. Which ones are those do you think?

 

[corneainterviewseason]

I'm not sure I know what those top programs are. Which ones are those do you think?

These are ones I have "heard" good things about, not firsthand knowledge on my part.

In no particular order

UC Davis
Baylor
Bascom
Michigan
Utah
Lindstrom
Mark Terry
Duke
UIC
UCSF
Hamilton
? San Diego
? Colorado - based on above
? Casey - based on above
Heard good things about some place in South Dakota

 

[kapp2015]

Argh rank time.

Any thoughts about UCLA?

 

[redfish99]

These are ones I have "heard" good things about, not firsthand knowledge on my part.

In no particular order

UC Davis
Baylor
Bascom
Michigan
Utah
Lindstrom
Mark Terry
Duke
UIC
UCSF
Hamilton
? San Diego
? Colorado - based on above
? Casey - based on above
Heard good things about some place in South Dakota

----
I think some of these rankings are out-dated and hold overs. Heard really good things about Michigan and Bascom, not really great things about UCSF and UCD--not really "cutting edge" and pretty stagnant with limited surgical experience (it seems like these were better fellowships in past years from what I have heard from the people I know on the west coast this is no longer the case). UIC is probably going to improve with their new chair. I always got the impression from west coast friends that casey volume wasn't great and Mark Terry was the game in town for Portland.

 

[dantt]

----
UIC is probably going to improve with their new chair. I always got the impression from west coast friends that casey volume wasn't great and Mark Terry was the game in town for Portland.

These comments have no basis in reality.

 

[royalmarquis]

I'm a 3rd year going into glaucoma. Last year at my mid-sized program we had 1 go in to cornea. This year we have 2; I was talking with both of them today at lunch. They made it sound like an average year in terms of competitiveness, but I'm not sure why they think that.

Cornea shouldn't be too competitive nowadays though, if you think about it. They don't make nearly as much as retina or plastics, and job prospects are very dismal when compared to glaucoma, pediatrics, or neuro. Our previous cornea fellow desperately tried to get a job in cornea, but she ended up taking a general job. For these reasons I don't think you have to worry about cornea being too competitive.

Just to get a sense, what are average salaries for Cornea vs Retina/Plastics?

 

[Tomodachi123]

The national average yearly ophthalmologist is $235,000 – $240,000 but some who have their own practice or are senior partners in a group practice can earn an average yearly salary of $500,000

Ophthalmologist specializing in retina care average yearly salary:

• $280,000 in the first 2 years
• $469,000 after 3 years
• $716,000 top salary

- See more at: http://www.salaryvoice.com/ophthalmologist-salary#sthash.x1FM1NhY.dpuf


http://www.salaryvoice.com/ophthalmologist-salary

 

[LightBox]

Most of the retinal specialists around me who are partners make in the high 6-figures or lowish 7-figures. I'm just a lowly anterior segment guy...

 

[Eyebandit]

Not so sure about Tulane's volume either

 

[DrZeke]

Most of the retinal specialists around me who are partners make in the high 6-figures or lowish 7-figures. I'm just a lowly anterior segment guy...

Wait what part of the country do you live in again?


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app

 

[LightBox]

Wait what part of the country do you live in again?


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app

East Coast (no, not Deep South or Midwest like some SDN'ers think . I would wager to guess that ALL senior retina partners make high 6 figures or 7 figures in a reasonably-run Retina group practice. Maybe a little lower for solo retina guys since they typically cannot scale as much and don't have associates churning out patients for them.

 

[DrZeke]

East Coast (no, not Deep South or Midwest like some SDN'ers think . I would wager to guess that ALL senior retina partners make high 6 figures or 7 figures in a reasonably-run Retina group practice. Maybe a little lower for solo retina guys since they typically cannot scale as much and don't have associates churning out patients for them.

Thanks for that info


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app

 

[rfint]

I am a more than five years after fellowship so my views on fellowship status are not up to date.
I would like to share a few thoughts, though.
I did my fellowship at UCSF and feel that I was trained very well both clinically and surgically.
That being said cornea fellowships are even more diverse than residencies:
there are busy clinical fellowships that will give you a sound medical training in external disease but have low surgical volume.
There are busy surgical fellowships that will leave you alone in the OR to figure out things for yourself and will not train you well either surgically or medically since you are on your own. You will be on your own with plenty of cases after fellowship.
There are fellowships that will not further your cataract skills others that do. There are fellowships that will provide you with refractive training and cases others that will only teach you about refractive cases without you ever doing any cases.
It depends what you are looking for when you describe a program as "good" or "bad". There are certainly programs that have a high academic reputation or have a very well known faculty. That will not necessarily translate into a good training or good mentorship for you. You need to find a good fit for yourself and for your future career.
My feelings on fellowship are:
go somewhere people will teach you how to do surgery. This does not necessarily mean high volume but high quality. You have to do a certain number of cases to feel comfortable but it is more important that you learn how to learn i.e. how to learn new skills than doing a large number of cases. It is more important that the cases you do are taught well. You are never done with your training. I know very good surgeons who still only do what they learned in fellowship. I know other surgeons that continue to learn and adopt new techniques. I taught myself DALK and DMEK after fellowship since this was not part of the surgical repertoire. That being said I felt comfortable acquiring new skill sets. At this time I almost do nothing the way I was taught since I have found other techniques that work better for me.
In addition to the surgical training do not underestimate the importance of clinical training. There are some programs that give you great training and teach you how to think so that you can figure things out for yourself with every new patient since you will never have seen everything. There are other programs where you are taught that the reason you treat something a certain way is "because I said so".
UCSF at that time provided me with exactly what I needed.
Everyone learns differently so this is only my personal opinion.

 

[DrZeke]

I am a more than five years after fellowship so my views on fellowship status are not up to date.
I would like to share a few thoughts, though.
I did my fellowship at UCSF and feel that I was trained very well both clinically and surgically.
That being said cornea fellowships are even more diverse than residencies:
there are busy clinical fellowships that will give you a sound medical training in external disease but have low surgical volume.
There are busy surgical fellowships that will leave you alone in the OR to figure out things for yourself and will not train you well either surgically or medically since you are on your own. You will be on your own with plenty of cases after fellowship.
There are fellowships that will not further your cataract skills others that do. There are fellowships that will provide you with refractive training and cases others that will only teach you about refractive cases without you ever doing any cases.
It depends what you are looking for when you describe a program as "good" or "bad". There are certainly programs that have a high academic reputation or have a very well known faculty. That will not necessarily translate into a good training or good mentorship for you. You need to find a good fit for yourself and for your future career.
My feelings on fellowship are:
go somewhere people will teach you how to do surgery. This does not necessarily mean high volume but high quality. You have to do a certain number of cases to feel comfortable but it is more important that you learn how to learn i.e. how to learn new skills than doing a large number of cases. It is more important that the cases you do are taught well. You are never done with your training. I know very good surgeons who still only do what they learned in fellowship. I know other surgeons that continue to learn and adopt new techniques. I taught myself DALK and DMEK after fellowship since this was not part of the surgical repertoire. That being said I felt comfortable acquiring new skill sets. At this time I almost do nothing the way I was taught since I have found other techniques that work better for me.
In addition to the surgical training do not underestimate the importance of clinical training. There are some programs that give you great training and teach you how to think so that you can figure things out for yourself with every new patient since you will never have seen everything. There are other programs where you are taught that the reason you treat something a certain way is "because I said so".
UCSF at that time provided me with exactly what I needed.
Everyone learns differently so this is only my personal opinion.

Just to give another "thumbs up" to your training... I know a few people who trained cornea or cornea/uveitis at UCSF and they speak very highly of their experience.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app