To assess the current literature on suture anchor placement for the purpose of identifying factors that lead to suture anchor perforation and techniques that reduce the likelihood of complications.

Three databases (PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE) were searched, and two reviewers independently screened the resulting literature. Methodological quality of all included papers was assessed using Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies criteria and the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment tool. Results are presented in a narrative summary fashion using descriptive statistics.

Fourteen studies were included in this review. Four case series (491 patients, 56.6% female, mean age 33.9 years), nine controlled cadaveric/laboratory studies (111 cadaveric hips and 12 sawbones, 42.2% female, mean age 60.0 years), and one randomized controlled trial (37 hips, 55.6% female, mean age 34.2 years) were included. Anterior cortical perforation by suture anchors led to pain and impingement of pelvic neurovascular structures. The anterior acetabular positions (three to four o'clock) had the thinnest bone, smallest rim angles, and highest incidence of articular perforation. Drilling angles from 10° to 20° measured off the coronal plane were acceptable. The mid-anterior (MA) and distal anterolateral (DALA) portals were used successfully, with some studies reporting difficulty placing anchors at anterior locations via the DALA portal. Small-diameter (< 1 .8-mm) suture anchors had a lower in vivo incidence of articular perforation with similar stability and pull-out strength in biomechanical studies.

Suture anchors at anterior acetabular rim positions (3–4 o'clock) should be inserted with caution. Large-diameter (>2.3-mm) suture anchors increase the likelihood of articular perforation without increasing labral stability. Inserting small-diameter (< 1 .8-mm) all-suture suture anchors (ASAs) from 10° to 20° using curved suture anchor drill guides, may increase safe insertion angles from all cutaneous portals. Direct arthroscopic visualization, use of fluoroscopy, distal-proximal insertion, and the use of nitinol wire can help prevent articular violation.

The World Health Organisation (WHO) has recently identified musculoskeletal care as a major global health issue in the developing world. However, little is known about the quality and trends of orthopaedic research in resource-poor settings. The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review of orthopaedic research in low-income countries (LIC). The primary objective was to determine the quality and publication parameters of studies performed in LIC. Secondary objectives sought to provide recommendations for successful strategies to implement research endeavors in LIC.

A systematic review of the literature was performed by searching MEDLINE (1966-November 2014), EMBASE and the Cochrane Library to identify peer-reviewed orthopaedic research conducted in LICs. The PRISMA guidelines for performing a systematic review were followed. LIC were defined by the WHO and by the World Bank as countries with gross national income per capita equal or less than 1045US$. Inclusion criteria were (1) studies performed in a LIC, (2) conducted on patients afflicted by an orthopaedic condition, and (3) evaluated either an orthopaedic intervention or outcome. The Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Levels of Evidence, and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) were used to objectively rate the overall methodological quality of each study. Additional data collected from these studies included the publication year, journal demographics, orthopaedic subspecialty and authors' country of origin.

A total of 1,809 articles were screened and 277 studies met our inclusion criteria. Eighty-eight percent of studies conducted in LIC were of lower quality evidence according to the GRADE score and consisted mostly of small case series or case reports. Bangladesh and Nepal were the only two LIC with national journals and produced the highest level of research evidence. Foreign researchers produced over 70% of the studies with no collaboration with local LIC researchers. The most common subspecialties were trauma (42%) and paediatrics (14%). The 3 most frequent countries where the research originated were the United States (42%), United Kingdom (11%), and Canada (8%). The 3 most common locations where research was conducted were Haiti (18%), Afghanistan (14%), and Malawi (7%).

The majority of orthopaedic studies conducted in LIC were of lower quality and performed by foreign researchers with little local collaboration. In order to promote the development of global orthopaedic surgery and research in LIC, we recommend (1) improving the collaboration between researchers in developed and LIC, (2) promoting the teaching of higher-quality and more rigorous research methodology through shared partnerships, (3) improving the capacity of orthopaedic research in developing nations through national peer-reviewed journals, and (4) dedicated subsections in international orthopaedic journals to global healthcare research.