Search

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to review the global pattern of surgical management of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI), particularly in diagnosis, outcome measurement, and management., Methods: We performed a systematic search in duplicate for surgical studies addressing FAI published up to June 2013. Study parameters, including sample size, study location, surgical intervention technique, diagnostic imaging, outcome measures used, sex distribution, and level of evidence, were obtained. The number of trials and cumulative sample size were analyzed. The surgical interventions, sex distribution, outcome measures, and diagnostic imaging used were compared between geographic regions., Results: We identified 105 studies reporting surgical interventions for FAI. Most studies were completed in North America (52 studies, 3,629 patients) and in Europe (44 studies, 3,745 patients). Asia (3 studies, 49 patients) and Oceania (6 studies, 394 patients) had smaller contributions. There were no studies from South America or Africa. Most research performed in North America, Europe, and Oceania investigated arthroscopic FAI surgery (55% of studies) followed by surgical dislocation (33%), and miniopen (15%) and combined approaches (8%). Methods of diagnosis were consistent worldwide, with radiography being the mainstay of diagnosis (84% of studies). Case series were the most common type of study globally (75% of studies). Outcome measures varied by region; Harris hip scores were most common in North America, Oceania, and Asia, whereas Non-Arthritic Hip Scores and Western Ontario McMaster scores predominated in Europe., Conclusions: Global surgical trends for FAI show a predominance of North American and European studies, studies of lower level evidence, and inconsistent use of outcome measures. However, patterns of diagnostic imaging, sex proportions, and predominance of arthroscopic techniques are consistent worldwide. Future research should focus on development of reliable validated outcome measures and international collaboration to conduct high-quality research and improve our understanding of FAI diagnosis and management., Level of Evidence: Level IV, systematic review of Level I-IV studies., (Copyright © 2014 Arthroscopy Association of North America. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aim: On the way to the unification of the European Union (EU), Germany has passed a new medical professional education system at the 106 (th) German medical board in Cologne in 2003. The medical board has established a new residency programme for the specialty of orthopaedic surgery, which was previously separated into orthopaedic and trauma surgery. An exchange of orthopaedic surgeons within the EU is therefore less complicated. For an exchange outside the EU, an international comparison especially with the USA is warranted., Method: We analysed and compared the German "Assistenzarzt System" with the residency programme of the USA regarding the specialty of orthopaedic surgery and further sub-specialisation programmes., Results: After evaluation of both systems, a high conformity in the basic training for orthopaedic surgery was demonstrated. However, there is a difference between the two systems regarding specialisation after residency training with the German "Oberarzt" on the one side and the American fellow system on the other side., Conclusion: This study demonstrates that the German orthopaedic training matches well with the American residency programs. There is potential for acknowledgement of the German title "Orthopaedic surgeon" in the USA. In some states, such as Pennsylvania, European medical specialists are given institutionally restricted work permission for limited periods of time. It remains, however, questionable if there is a general political intent for the USA to acknowledge German or European residency programs.