## 3 Results  
As presented in Figure 1 (PRISMA 2020 flow diagram), from the records identified by the initial literature searches, 119 studies were excluded, and 5 articles met the inclusion criteria (Table 1).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Author, Year, and Study Type** & **Methods** & **Results** & **Oucleons Achieved** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{[PERSON] et al., 2019 (Plot Study) [47]} & Randomized Controlled Trial with 3D participants (10 per group), Obo group underwent a rubabilitation program & The group incorporating trunk stabilization showed significantly greater improvements in pain & Enhanced pain relief, improved hip ROM, and increased muscle strength in the new rapid system execution method, \\  & focused on hip and pelvic strengthening, while the other & significantly greater improvements in pain & Enhanced pain relief, improved hip ROM, and increased muscle strength in the group receiving strength, particularly in hip flexes and abtatories. \\  & group included trunk stabilization exercises in addition to hip and pelvic strengthening. The intervention lasted vessels. & strength, particularly in hip flexes and abtatories. \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{[PERSON] et al., 2021 (Randomized Controlled Trial) [19]} & Multi-center RCT with 164 participants randomized into two groups: one received progressive muscle strengthening. & The intervention group exhibited significant improvements in hip-guided quality of life and functional-capacity. The standardized stretching and physical activity group had lower scores in functional improvement. \\  & functional-capacity. The structural-based stretching & Better quality of life, increased functional performance, and higher patient-reported \\  & stretching and physical activity group. Follow-up at & and physical activity group had lower scores in \\  & functional improvement. & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{[PERSON] et al., 2018 (Randomized Controlled Trial) [5]} & Single-center, parallel-design RCT with 80 participants & No significant difference in functional outcomes between the system and uncertainty treatment \\  & comparing a structured struck, physically primary program & the supporting the 2 year labour-only. Both groups \\  & (manual therapy, modification, exercise therapy) against hip & improved, but surgery did not provide superior \\  & arthoscopy. Follow-ups at 4 months, 1 year, and 2 years. & benefits. \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{[PERSON] et al., 2021 (Randomized Controlled Trial) [25]} & RCT with 80 participants randomized to either arthoscopic surgery followed by a straightforward post-operative \\  & rehabilitation program or a conservative physiotherapy-only & A12 months, the surgical group had significantly \\  & approach. Follow-ups at 3 years, 6 and 2 months. & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{[PERSON] et al., 2019 (Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial) [48]} & RCT conducted across Swiss National Health Service centres & Increased patient-group showed superior improvements \\  & with 22 participants. The intervention group involved & improved exposure of negative improvements \\  & arthoscopy surgery with Jurkat repair and bone resection, & in functional scores and ROM, particularly in hip \\  & while the control group followed a structural rehabilitation & flexion, but no significant differences in other \\  & program emphasizing one stability and motor control. & movement directions. \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Legend: FASE–Femoreoreostablier Ingengement Syndrome; RCT–Randomized Controlled Trial; ROM–range of motion.} \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-3}  & & \\ \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 1: Summary of studies on conservative vs. surgical treatment for Femoreostabular Impingement Syndrome (FAS).