Posts

4 Things I Learned in 2017

Each year I try to always look back and reflect on what I have learned and changed in my life, both personally and professionally. We really put a priority on personal development at Champion. This helps me to grow and evolve as I learn each year, plus, helps me set goals for the upcoming new year.

If you don’t also reflect back on what you have learned and changed, I think you are missing out on a huge opportunity to grow.  Too many people in our fields spend all their energy defending their beliefs instead of keeping an open mind and evolving.

I’ll share some of the things I learned in 2017, but if you are interested, I’d love to read in the comments what you have learned that has changed your approach this year. By sharing, we can all grow.

Ego is the Enemy

Early in the year I read a great book called Ego is the Enemy, by Ryan Holliday. I thought it was great and had a big impact on my year.

Usually when we think of ego, we think of it in a bad way. But that’s not always the case and not what I took from the book.

Being egotistical all the time can be bad, but often times we just do things for the wrong reasons, that I believe often limit us and inhibit our growth.

I actually used this mindset a lot this year, and said “no” more than any past year in my career. I am a big fan of establishing goals. If a project wasn’t right and didn’t ultimately lead to my goals, I said “no.” In the past I have felt like I have always said “yes” to everything for the fear of missing out. That to me was saying “yes” for my ego.

From a business perspective, think of it this way, rather than building a new service for your facility to make money or gain notoriety, or essentially to boost your ego, build a new service to actually help people achieve their goals.

It’s surprising to me when I clearly see people advertise things that are clearly just for them, not for the consumer. If your motivation behind the program is sincere, things will always work out better for you, and you’ll make that money and gain that notoriety organically.

EliteBaseballPerformance.com is a great example of this concept for me. I started the website because I was sick of all the garbage and marketing around baseball development that I saw online. We needed a trustworthy place for information for players, parents, coaches, and rehab/fitness specialist.

I didn’t start it to make money, in fact I’m well in the hole financially, I did it to help the game of baseball, which I’m passionate about. Will we offer products on it in the future and make money, sure, but we won’t offer these products with the goal of making money, that will be the side benefit. We’ll offer them to help our mission and the game of baseball.

We also did this when we launched our new Elite Pitching Performance Program at Champion this winter. We could have charged triple what we did, but it wasn’t about the money, it was about giving back to the local teams in the area and building what I believe is the best and more comprehensive pitching development program in the country. It wasn’t about my ego, it was about helping these kids achieve their goals, heck their dreams, by taking their baseball career to the next level.

This year I really reflected on my decisions and said, am I doing this for the right reasons, or for my own ego?

Simple is Still Better

Man, are we getting carried away in the rehab and fitness fields with the latest trends and fads. It seems like every day there is a new post on social media that blows my mind by taking such huge leaps in rationale.

I’ve always been complimented on my presentations for one main reason – people have told me I make the complicated more simple.

As social media continues to become a contest of who can make simple things more complicated, I’ve been doing the exact opposite.

Students are graduating school right now with set mindsets and opinions that complicated systems are the definitive answer. Wow, I wish everyone realized there are no definitive answers.

But more alarming to me is that they haven’t learned how to actually treat a shoulder, yet think the first thing they must tackle is diaphragmatic breathing. Sure, that may be important but is that your primary focus? Is that how you want to spend your VERY limited time with your client?

At Champion, we always focus on the low hanging fruit first. You’ll hear us say that a lot.

I’ve talked about this in the past with things like the concept Kinetic Chain Ripple Effect and my post on The Problem with the Kinetic Chain Concept. Sure, it stinks that your left big toes doesn’t extend. But there are about 50 other things I would work on first that will be more impactful for someone with shoulder pain.

Students and new grads – Master the basics first, then expand your approach to focus on the more complicated. You’ll get much better results.

As I look back on the year, I’m focusing on the basics and keeping it simple more than ever, and I believe my outcomes just keep getting better.

Our Assessments Must Have 2 Components

When I first started physical therapy school more than 20 years ago, we were a very “joint-based” profession. We weren’t thinking globally and we were very focused on the person’s symptoms.

Over the last couple of decades, the “functional” approach has taken priority with a focus on movement quality, which is great.

At Champion this year, we took a big step back and assessed our own evaluation process. We essentially said, each of our evaluations must have two components:

  1. A structural examination
  2. A movement assessment

Our treatment sessions and our performance programs all focus on both. If you are still focused on only one of these, you are really missing the boat.

As with anything, pendulums shift and we are probably starting to lean more towards the movement side of the assessment on our profession.  But, I think this will come back to the middle at some point.

You must look both structurally and functionally.

The Right Way to Use Social Media

I’m really proud of so many young professionals getting themselves out there on social media. I believe that sharing our knowledge is a key component of our own personal growth.

But, I’m not sure most are doing it right, or least what I would consider “right.”

I’m not sure we need another post on the plank, and I’m not sure we need to be making our own “quotes” as if we are all brilliant prophets.

I want to see more people educating and making posts for their clients.

This year I tried to keep it simple and not about my ego, make it more about helping people (see the recurring themes from above?). Remember, we are in a service industry.

Want some examples of people I think doing it right?

Here are some links to Instagram profiles you should follow and model yourself after, like I have:

  • @achievefitnessboston – My friends Jason and Lauren Pak may have the best IG account going right now, with excellent quality content.  Their approach to things like making strength training less intimidating to the masses is a great example of people doing it right through education and focusing their posts on helping people, not themselves.
  • @shiftmovementscience – Dave Tilley shares his passion about improving gymnastics.  Not 1 ounce of what he does is about his ego, it’s about the athletes he helps and the sport he loves.  
  • @fitnesspainfree – Dan Pope has been sharing his knowledge and walks the walk about high level fitness athletes.
  • @syattfitness – It’s been fun to watch Jordan build his online presence, sharing a TON of simple but impactful content
  • More of our crew at Champion, and some newbies to the online world are @lenmacpt, @kieferlammi, and @mikescadutodpt, who are building their online presence the right way with great educational content from the start.

What Have You Learned?

Now’s a great time to reflect on what you have learned this year. Again, I would love to hear about it in the comments below, but even if you don’t share I encourage you to reflect on the past year on your own.

Good luck in 2018!

 

Should We Delay Range of Motion After a Rotator Cuff Repair Surgery?

Over the last several years, there has been a trend among orthopedic surgeons to delay the start of rehabilitation, specifically range of motion exercises, following rotator cuff repair surgery.

It’s my opinion that this trend started in response to the research that has been reported in the past that show issues with tendon healing rates and a large percentage of rotator cuff repairs are not intact at follow up examination.

For example, I previously discussed the outcomes of arthroscopic rotator repairs and noted that at the one year follow up after surgery, 68% had an intact rotator cuff. 32% had a full thickness tear again.

So physicians did what they tend to do… They started to get more conservative and delayed the start of rehabilitation. I’ve discussed a similar to approach to rehabilitation following total shoulder replacement.

But does delaying the start of range of motion after rotator cuff repair surgery even help improve outcomes?

Does immobilization after rotator cuff repair increase tendon healing?

A systematic review was published in the Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery that looked at 3 randomized control trials comparing immediate versus delayed range of motion follow rotator cuff repair surgery.

The authors reported a few findings.

Most importantly, there was no difference in tendon healing rate, showing that early range of motion is safe to perform and not the reason why people may retear.

Range of motion improved earlier in the immediate range of motion group, but was similar at the year mark. This is consistent with many past studies. Again physicians read into this and use this stat to favor delayed range of motion, stating that patients are all the same at 1 year postoperative. However, as we all know, restoring motion is key to the patient’s’ subjective and functional outcomes. Similarly, functional outcomes were achieved sooner in the immediate range of motion group.

Based on this systematic review, I would continue to recommend performing control range of motion following rotator cuff repair surgery as it appears to be safe and effective at restoring motion and function sooner than if we delay rehabilitation.

Learn More About How I Evaluate and Treat the Shoulder

I’m pretty excited to announce I have revised my acclaimed online program teaching you exactly how I evaluate and treat the shoulder to now include a lesson on the arthritic shoulder! If you want to learn more about how I work with rotator cuff repairs, and everything else related to the shoulder, you’re going to want to take my online course.

 

Should We Delay Range of Motion After a Total Shoulder Replacement?

Total shoulder replacement surgery is being performed more and more each year.  Our current patients were more active in sports in their youth, potentially increasing the chances of developing an arthritic shoulder.  They also want to remain active as they age, potentially increasing the likelihood that they want to have a total shoulder arthroplasty surgery to allow them to remain active.

Over the years, the surgical technique for a total shoulder replacement has improved, though I’m not sure our rehabilitation approach has also improved.  If our patients are younger and want to be more active after total shoulder replacement, then perhaps our rehabilitation programs should adjust based on their goals.

Rehabilitation Following Total Shoulder Replacement

Historically, a conservative approach was appropriate for many patients, as their needs and activity goals were less aggressive than many patients today.  It was acceptable to have a moderate loss of range of motion in exchange for less pain in their shoulder.

Many surgeons continue to recommend a conservative approach to the restoration of range of motion following surgery.

It is true that one of the primary goals of the postoperative rehabilitation following total shoulder replacement is to protect the subscapularis.  The subscapularis muscle is taken down to some extent during the surgical procedure and the integrity of this muscle has been correlated to the overall outcome of the procedure.

Other motions, such as behind the back and shoulder extension behind their body, also place the arthroplasty in a disadvantageous position and can lead to dislocation of the joint.

But even with these precautions, I am still an advocate of early range of motion, especially if you respect these restrictions.

Passive ROM and Active ROM are Not the Same

A recent report was recently published in Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery that may actually be causing some confusion on when to start range of motion.

In the study, the authors compared a group of patients that began range of motion immediately versus a group that delayed 4 weeks.  The authors reported that the immediate range of motion group gained more motion, restored it earlier, and also showed an earlier increase in functional outcome scores.

However, 96% of the patients that delayed range of motion showed healing of the lesser tuberosity osteotomy, while only 82% of the immediate range of motion group showed healing.  Furthermore, functional outcomes scores 3 months and 1 year after surgery were similar between the groups.

This has led to many recommending a delay in range of motion.  But…

When looking deeper at the methods, the authors chose to use the rope and pulley and stick elevation range of motion exercises.  As we all know, these are not passive range of motion exercises, they are active assisted range of motion exercises.

There’s a big difference between passive and active range of motion exercises!

Previous EMG studies have shown the rotator cuff to be between 18-25% active and the deltoid to be between 21-43% active during these exercises.  Not very passive.  Conversely, passive range of motion exercises have been shown to be between 3-10% active.

This is a big difference.  I believe passive range of motion is appropriate, as long as you respect the restrictions on restoring external rotation to protect the subscapularis and avoid behind the body and behind the back motions to protect the replacement.
Immediate Range of Motion Restores Function Faster

Since we all work with these patients after surgery, we know that they are always happier when they restore their motion sooner.  And this increase in range of motion is likely related to the earlier improvement in functional outcome scores.

I think there is a middle ground of immediate, yet cautious, passive range of motion.  Again, I want to reiterate, “passive” range of motion.  Not active.

By focusing on this, I believe our patients will have much better outcomes.

Learn More About How I Evaluate and Treat the Shoulder

I’m pretty excited to announce I have revised my acclaimed online program teaching you exactly how I evaluate and treat the shoulder to now include a lesson on the arthritic shoulder!  If you want to learn more about how I work with the arthritic shoulder, patients following total and reverse shoulder replacements, and everything else related to the shoulder, you’re going to want to take my online course.

 

6 Keys to Shoulder Instability Rehabilitation

Shoulder instability is a common pathology encountered in the orthopedic and sports medicine setting.

But “shoulder instability” itself isn’t that simple to understand.

Would you treat a high school baseball player that feels like their shoulder is loose when throwing the same as a 35 year old that fell on ice onto an outstretched arm and dislocated their shoulder?  They’re both “shoulder instability,” right?

There exists a wide range of symptomatic shoulder instabilities from subtle recurrent subluxations to traumatic dislocations. Nonoperative rehabilitation is commonly utilized for shoulder instability to regain previous functional activities through specific strengthening exercises, dynamic stabilization drills, neuromuscular training, proprioception drills, scapular muscle strengthening program and a gradual return to their desired activities.

I’ve had great success rehabilitating dislocated shoulders and helping people return back to full activities without surgery.  But to truly understand shoulder instability, there are several key factors that you must consider.

 

Key Factors When Designing Rehabilitation Programs for Shoulder Instability

Because there are so many different variations of shoulder instability, it is extremely important to understand several factors that will impact the rehabilitation program.  This will allow us to individualize programs and enhance recovery.

There are 6 main factors that I consider when designing my rehabilitation programs for nonoperative shoulder instability rehabilitation.  I’m going to cover each in detail.

 

Factor #1 – Chronicity of Shoulder Instability

The first factor to consider in the rehabilitation of a patient with shoulder instability is the onset of the pathology.

Pathological shoulder instability may result from an acute, traumatic event or chronic, recurrent instability. The goal of the rehabilitation program may vary greatly based on the onset and mechanism of injury.

Following a traumatic subluxation or dislocation, the patient typically presents with significant tissue trauma, pain and apprehension. The patient who has sustained a dislocation often exhibits more pain due to muscle spasm than a patient who has subluxed their shoulder. Furthermore, a first time episode of dislocation is generally more painful than the repeat event.

Rehabilitation will be progressed based on the patient’s symptoms with emphasis on early controlled range of motion, reduction of muscle spasms and guarding and relief of pain.

The primary traumatic dislocation is most often treated conservatively with immobilization in a sling and early controlled passive range of motion (ROM) exercises especially with first time dislocations. The incidence of recurrent dislocation ranges from 17-96% with a mean of 67% in patient populations between the ages of 21-30 years old. Therefore, the rehabilitation program should progress cautiously in young athletic individuals. It should be noted that Hovelius et al has demonstrated that the rate of recurrent dislocations is based on the patient’s age and not affected by the length of post-injury immobilization. Individuals between the ages of 19 and 29 years are the most likely to experience multiple episodes of instability. Hovelius et al also noted patients in their 20’s exhibited a recurrence rate of 60% whereas patients in their 30’s to 40’s had less than a 20% recurrence rate. In adolescents, the recurrence rate is as high as 92% and 100% with an open physes.

Conversely, a patient presenting with atraumatic instability often presents with a history of repetitive injuries and symptomatic complaints. Often the patient does not complain of a single instability episode but rather a feeling of shoulder laxity or an inability to perform specific tasks.

Rehabilitation for this patient should focus on early proprioception training, dynamic stabilization drills, neuromuscular control, scapular muscle exercises and muscle strengthening exercises to enhance dynamic stability due to the unique characteristic of excessive capsular laxity and capsular redundancy in this type of patient.

Chronic subluxations, as seen in the atraumatic, unstable shoulder may be treated more aggressively due to the lack of acute tissue damage and less muscular guarding and inflammation. Rotator cuff and periscapular strengthening activities should be initiated while ROM exercises are progressed. Caution is placed on avoiding excessive stretching of the joint capsule through aggressive ROM activities.

The goal is to enhance strength, proprioception, dynamic stability and neuromuscular control especially in the specific points of motion or direction which results in instability complaints.

 

Factor #2 – Degree of Shoulder Instability

Bankart LesionThe second factor is the degree of instability present in the patient and its effect on their function.

Varying degrees of shoulder instability exist such as a subtle subluxation or gross instability. The term subluxation refers to the complete separation of the articular surfaces with spontaneous reduction. Conversely, a dislocation is a complete separation of the articular surfaces and requires a specific movement or manual reduction to relocate the joint. This will result in underlying capsular tissue trauma. Thus, with shoulder dislocations the degree of trauma to the glenohumeral joint’s soft tissue is much more extensive.

Speer et al have reported that in order for a shoulder dislocation to occur, a Bankart lesion must be present and also soft tissue trauma must be present on both sides of the glenohumeral joint capsule.

Thus, in the situation of an acute traumatic dislocation, the anterior capsule may be avulsed off the glenoid (this is called a Bankart lesion – see pictures to the right) and the posterior capsule may be stretched, allowing the humeral head to dislocate. This has been referred to as the “circle stability concept.”

The rate of progression will vary based upon the degree of instability and persistence of symptoms. For example, a patient with mild subluxations and muscle guarding may initially tolerate strengthening exercises and neuromuscular control drills more than a patient with a significant amount of muscular guarding.

 

Factor #3 – Concomitant Pathology

Hill Sachs LesionThe third factor involves considering other tissues that may have been affected and the premorbid status of the tissue.

As we previously discussed, disruption of the anterior capsulolabral complex from the glenoid commonly occurs during a traumatic injury resulting in an anterior Bankart lesion. But other tissues may also be involved.

Often osseous lesions may be present such as a concomitant Hill Sach’s lesion caused by an impaction of the posterolateral aspect of the humeral head as it compresses against the anterior glenoid rim during relocation. This has been reported in up to 80% of dislocations. Conversely, a reverse Hill Sach’s lesion may be present on the anterior aspect of the humeral head due to a posterior dislocation.

Occasionally, a bone bruise may be present in individuals who have sustained a shoulder dislocation as well as pathology to the rotator cuff. In rare cases of extreme trauma, the brachial plexus may become involved as well. Other common injuries in the unstable shoulder may involve the superior labrum (SLAP lesion) such as a type V SLAP lesion characterized by a Bankart lesion of the anterior capsule extending into the anterior superior labrum. These concomitant lesions will affect the rehabilitation significantly in order to protect the healing tissue.

 

 

Factor # 4 – Direction of Shoulder Instability

Shoulder Multidirectional InstabilityThe next factor to consider is the direction of shoulder instability present. The three most common forms include anterior, posterior and multidirectional.

Anterior shoulder instability is the most common traumatic type of instability seen in the general orthopedic population. It has been reported that this type of instability represents approximately 95% of all traumatic shoulder instabilities. However, the incidence of posterior instabilities appears to be dependent on the patient population. For example, in professional or collegiate football, the incidence of posterior shoulder instability appears higher than the general population. This is especially true in linemen. Often, these posterior instability patients require surgery as Mair et al reported 75% required surgical stabilization.

Following a traumatic event in which the humeral head is forced into extremes of abduction and external rotation, or horizontal abduction, the glenolabral complex and capsule may become detached from the glenoid rim resulting in anterior instability, or a Bankart lesion as discussed above.

Conversely, rarely will a patient with atraumatic instability due to capsular redundancy dislocate their shoulder. These individuals are more likely to repeatedly sublux the joint without complete separation of the humerus from the glenoid rim.

Posterior shoulder instability occurs less frequently, only accounting for less than 5% of traumatic shoulder dislocations.

This type of instability is often seen following a traumatic event such as falling onto an outstretched hand or from a pushing mechanism. However, patients with significant atraumatic laxity may complain of posterior instability especially with shoulder elevation, horizontal adduction and excessive internal rotation due to the strain placed on the posterior capsule in these positions.

Multidirectional instability (MDI) can be identified as shoulder instability in more than one plane of motion. Patients with MDI have a congenital predisposition and exhibit ligamentous laxity due to excessive collagen elasticity of the capsule.

Shoulder Sulcus SignOne of the most simple tests you can perform to assess MDI is the sulcus sign.

I would consider an inferior displacement of greater than 8-10mm during the sulcus maneuver with the arm adducted to the side as significant hypermobility, thus suggesting significant congenital laxity.  You can see this pretty good in this photo to the right, the sulcus is clearly larger than my finger width.

Due to the atraumatic mechanism and lack of acute tissue damage with MDI, ROM is often normal to excessive.

Patients with recurrent shoulder instability due to MDI generally have weakness in the rotator cuff, deltoid and scapular stabilizers with poor dynamic stabilization and inadequate static stabilizers. Initially, the focus is on maximizing dynamic stability, scapula positioning, proprioception and improving neuromuscular control in mid ROM.

Also, rehabilitation should focus on improving the efficiency and effectiveness of glenohumeral joint force couples through co-contraction exercises, rhythmic stabilization and neuromuscular control drills. Isotonic strengthening exercises for the rotator cuff, deltoid and scapular muscles are also emphasized to enhance dynamic stability.

 

Factor #5 – Neuromuscular Control

neuromuscular controlThe fifth factor to consider is the patient’s level of neuromuscular control, particularly at end range.

Injury with resultant insufficient neuromuscular control could result in deleterious effects to the patient. As a result, the humeral head may not center itself within the glenoid, thereby compromising the surrounding static stabilizers. The patient with poor neuromuscular control may exhibit excessive humeral head migration with the potential for injury, an inflammatory response, and reflexive inhibition of the dynamic stabilizers.

Several authors have reported that neuromuscular control of the glenohumeral joint may be negatively affected by joint instability.

Lephart et al compared the ability to detect passive motion and the ability to reproduce joint positions in normal, unstable and surgically repaired shoulders. The authors reported a significant decrease in proprioception and kinesthesia in the shoulders with instability when compared to both normal shoulders and shoulders undergoing surgical stabilization procedures.

Smith and Brunoli reported a significant decrease in proprioception following a shoulder dislocation.

Blasier et al reported that individuals with significant capsular laxity exhibited a decrease in proprioception compared to patients with normal laxity.

Zuckerman et al noted that proprioception is affected by the patient’s age with older subjects exhibiting diminished proprioception than a comparably younger population.

Thus, the patient presenting with traumatic or acquired instability may present with poor neuromuscular control that must be addressed.

 

Factor # 6 – Pre-Injury Activity Level

The final factor to consider in the nonoperative rehabilitation of the unstable shoulder is the arm dominance and the desired activity level of the patient.

If the patient frequently performs an overhead motion or sporting activities such as a tennis, volleyball or a throwing sport, then the rehabilitation program should include sport specific dynamic stabilization exercises, neuromuscular control drills and plyometric exercises in the overhead position once full, pain free ROM and adequate strength has been achieved.

Patients whose functional demands involve below shoulder level activities will follow a progressive exercise program to return full ROM and strength. The success rates of patients returning to overhead sports after a traumatic dislocation of their dominant arm are often low, but possible.

Arm dominance can also significantly influence the successful outcome. The recurrence rates of instabilities vary based on age, activity level and arm dominance. In athletes involved in collision sports, the recurrence rates have been reported between 86-94%.

 

Keys to Shoulder Instability Rehabilitation

To summarize, nonoperative rehabilitation of shoulder instability has many subtle variations.  To simplify my thought process, I always think of these 6 key factors before I decide what I want to do.  I hope these factors help you too.  What other factors do you consider when designing rehabilitation programs for shoulder instability?

 

Learn How I Evaluate and Treat the Shoulder

shoulder seminarWant to learn exactly how I rehabilitate shoulder instability?

I have a whole lesson on this as part of my comprehensive online program on the Evidence Based Evaluation and Treatment of the Shoulder at ShoulderSeminar.com.  If you want to learn exactly how I evaluate and treat the shoulder, including shoulder instability, this course is for you.  You’ll be an expert on shoulders!

 

 

 

 

Clinical Examination of Superior Labral Tears – What is the Best Special Test for a SLAP Tear?

**Updated in 2017**

What is the best test for a SLAP tear?  That is a pretty common question that I hear at meetings.

Clinical examination to detect SLAP lesions is often difficult because of the common presence of concomitant pathology in patients presenting with this type of condition. Andrews has shown that 45% of patients (and 73% of baseball pitchers) with superior labral lesions have concomitant partial thickness tears of the supraspinatus portion of the rotator cuff.  Mileski and Snyder reported that 29% of their patients with SLAP lesions exhibited partial thickness rotator cuff tears, 11% complete rotator cuff tears, and 22% Bankart lesions of the anterior glenoid.

The clinician should keep in mind that while labral pathologies frequently present as repetitive overuse conditions, such as those commonly seen in overhead athletics, the patient may also describe a single traumatic event such as a fall onto the outstretched arm or an episode of sudden traction, or a blow to the shoulder.  This is an extremely important differentiation you need to make when selecting which tests you should perform.

A wide variety of potentially useful special test maneuvers have been described to help determine the presence of labral pathology.  Lets review some of them now.

This article is part of a 4-part series on SLAP Lesions

Special Tests for a SLAP Tear

There are literally dozens of special tests for SLAP tears of the shoulder.  I am going to share some of the most popular SLAP tests.

 

Active Compression Test

active compression SLAP testThe active compression test is used to evaluate labral lesions and acromioclavicular joint injuries. This could be the most commonly performed test, especially in orthopedic surgeons.  I am not sure why, though, I do not think it is the best.

The shoulder is placed into approximately 90 degrees of elevation and 30 degrees of horizontal adduction across the midline of the body. Resistance is applied, using an isometric hold, in this position with both full shoulder internal and external rotation (altering humeral rotation
against the glenoid in the process). A positive test for labral involvement is when pain is elicited when testing with the shoulder in internal rotation and forearm in pronation (thumb pointing toward the floor). Symptoms are typically decreased when tested in the externally rotated position or the pain is localized at the acromioclavicular (AC) joint.

O’Brien et al found this maneuver to be 100% sensitive and 95% specific as it relates to assessing the presence of labral pathology.  These results are outstanding, maybe too outstanding. Pain provocation using this test is common, challenging the validity of the results. In my experience, the presence of deep and diffuse glenohumeral joint pain is most indicative of the presence of a SLAP lesion. Pain localized in the AC joint or in the posterior rotator cuff is not specific for the presence of a SLAP lesion. The posterior shoulder symptoms are indicative of provocative strain on the rotator cuff musculature when the shoulder is placed in this position.

The challenging part of this test is that many patients will be symptomatic from overloading their rotator cuff in this disadvantageous position.

  • Sensitivity: 47-100%, Specificity: 31-99%, PPV: 10-94%, NPV: 45-100% (a lot of variability between various authors)

 

Biceps Load Test

The biceps load testBiceps Load SLAP Test involves placing the shoulder in 90 degrees of abduction and maximally externally rotated. At maximal external rotation and with the forearm in a supinated position, the patient is instructed to perform a biceps contraction
against resistance. Deep pain within the shoulder during this contraction is indicative of a SLAP lesion.
The original authors further refined this test with the description of the biceps load II maneuver. The examination technique is similar, although the shoulder is placed into a position of 120 degrees of abduction rather than the originally described 90 degrees.  The biceps load II test was noted to have greater sensitivity than the original test.  I like both of these tests and usually perform them both.
  • Sensitivity: 91%, Specificity: 97%, PPV: 83%, NPV: 98% for Biceps Load I; Sensitivity: 90%, Specificity: 97%, PPV: 92%, NPV: 96% for Biceps Load II

 

Compression Rotation Test

Compression Rotation SLAP TestThe compression-rotation test is performed with the patient in the supine position. The glenohumeral joint is manually compressed through the long axis of the humerus while, the humerus is passively rotated back and forth in an attempt to trap the labrum within the joint. This is typically performed in a variety of small and large circles while providing joint compression when performing this maneuver, in an attempt to grind the labrum between the glenoid and the humeral head. Furthermore, the examiner may attempt to detect anterosuperior labral lesions by placing the arm in a horizontally abducted position while providing an anterosuperior directed force. In contrast, the examiner may also horizontally adduct the humerus and provide a posterosuperiorly directed force when performing this test.  I think of this test as “exploring” the joint for a torn labrum.  It is hit or miss for me.

  • Sensitivity: 24%, Specificity: 76%, PPV: 90%, NPV: 9%

 

Dynamic Speed’s Test

dynamic speeds SLAP testThe Speed’s biceps tension test has been found to accurately reproduce pain in instances of SLAP lesions.  I have personally not seen this to be true very often.

It is performed by resisting downwardly applied pressure to the arm when the shoulder is positioned in 90 degrees of forward elevation with the elbow extended and forearm supinated. Clinically, we also perform a new test for SLAP lesions.

Kevin Wilk and I developed a variation of the original Speed’s test, which we refer to as the “Dynamic Speed’s Test.”  (I came up with the name, what do you think?)  During this maneuver, the examiner provides resistance against both shoulder elevation and elbow flexion simultaneously as the patient  elevates the arm overhead. Deep pain within the shoulder is typically produced with shoulder elevation above 90 degrees if this test is positive for labral pathology.

Anecdotally, we have found this maneuver to be more sensitive than the originally described static Speed’s test in detecting SLAP lesions, particularly in the overhead athlete.  To me, it seems like you only get symptoms with greater degrees of elevation, making the original Speed’s Test less sensitive in my hands.

  • Sensitivity: 90%, Specificity: 14%, PPV: 23%, NPV: 83% for the Speed’s test

 

Clunk and Crank Tests

clunk crank slap testThe clunk test is performed with the patient supine. The examiner places one hand on the posterior aspect of the glenohumeral joint while the other grasps the bicondylar aspect of the humerus at the elbow. The examiner’s proximal hand provides an anterior translation of the humeral head while simultaneously rotating the humerus externally with the hand holding the elbow.  The mechanism of this test is similar to that of a McMurray’s test of the knee menisci, where the examiner is attempting to trap the torn labrum between the glenoid and the humeral head. A positive test is produced by the presence of a clunk or grinding sound and is indicative of a labral tear.

The crank test can be performed with the patient either sitting or supine. The shoulder is elevated to 160 degrees in the plane of the scapula. An axial load is then applied by the examiner while the humerus is internally and externally rotated in this position. A positive test typically elicits pain with external rotation. Symptomatic clicking or grinding may also be present during this maneuver.  These tests seem to do well with finding a bucket-handle tear of from a Type III or Type IV SLAP lesion more than anything else for me.

  • Sensitivity: 39-91%, Specificity: 56-93%, PPV: 41-94%, NPV: 29-90%

 

 

2 New(er) Special Tests for SLAP Lesions

In addition to the classic SLAP tests that have been described, there are two additional tests that gained popularity more recently.

I wanted share a video that I have on YouTube that demonstrates these two tests. These were actually published in a paper I wrote in JOSPT a few years ago, but I have modified them a little and wanted to share. These two tests are both excellent at detecting peel-back SLAP lesions, specifically in overhead throwing athletes, but are useful for any population. I share these two tests because I know that there is a lot of confusion regarding the “best” test. These may not be them, but in my hands, both have been extremely helpful and, more importantly, accurate.

Pronated Load SLAP Test

The first test is the “Pronated Load Test,” it is performed in the supine position with the shoulder abducted to 90° and externally rotated. However, the forearm is in a fully pronated position to increase tension on the biceps and subsequently the labral attachment. When maximal external rotation is achieved, the patient is instructed to perform a resisted isometric contraction of the biceps to simulate the peel-back mechanism. This test combines the active bicipital contraction of the biceps load test with the passive external rotation in the pronated position, which elongates the biceps. A positive test is indicated by discomfort within the shoulder.

 

Resisted Supination External Rotation SLAP Test

The second test was described by Myers in AJSM, called the “Resisted Supination External Rotation Test.” Dr. Myers was a fellow at ASMI and a good friend of mine, he really wanted to call this the SUPER test (for SUPination ER) but I was one of many that advised him against this for obvious reasons!

During this test, the patient is positioned in 90° of shoulder abduction, and 65-70° of elbow flexion and the forearm in neutral position. The examiner resists against a maximal supination effort while passively externally rotating the shoulder. Myers noted that this test simulates the peel-back mechanism of SLAP injuries by placing maximal tension on the long head of the biceps by supinating.

Myers’ study of 40 patients revealed that this test had better sensitivity (82.8%), specificity (81.8%), positive predictive value (PPV) (92.3%), negative predictive value (NPV) (64.3%), and diagnostic accuracy (82.5%) compared to the crank test and extremely popular O’Brien’s or active compression test. A positive test is indicated by discomfort within the shoulder.

 

When Do You Perform These Tests?

Now that you know a bunch of special tests for SLAP tears, the real key is understanding “when” to pick each test.  In my mind, they all are slightly different and may even be better at detecting different types of SLAP lesions.  I have an Inner Circle webinar that discusses this and shows you my clinical algorithm on how and why I perform special tests to diagnose a SLAP tear:

 

 

Learn Exactly How I Evaluate and Treat the Shoulder

shoulder seminarIf you want to learn even more about the shoulder, my online course at ShoulderSeminar.com will teach you exactly how I evaluate and treat the shoulder.  It is packed with tons of educational content that will help you master the shoulder, including detailed information on the clinical examination and treatment of SLAP tears.

 

 

 

Special Tests to Diagnose SLAP Tears

The latest Inner Circle webinar recording on Special Tests to Diagnose SLAP Tears is now available.

 

 

Special Tests to Diagnose SLAP Tears

This month’s Inner Circle webinar is on Special Tests to Diagnose SLAP Tears.  In this presentation, I review the many, many different SLAP special tests that exist and explain when and why you would choose certain ones for different people.

This webinar will cover:

  • Why there are so many different SLAP special tests
  • The common mechanisms of injury for SLAP tears
  • Why a good subjective history should lead your clinical examination
  • How to choose specific special tests for specific people
  • How to perform my most commonly used SLAP tests

To access this webinar:

 

 

How do SLAP Tears Occur: Mechanisms of Injury to the Superior Labrum

**Updated in 2017**

How does a SLAP Tear of the shoulder occur?

That’s a common question I here often.  Now that we have discussed the different types and classification of SLAP tears to the superior labrum, I wanted to now talk about how these shoulder injuries occur. There are several injury mechanisms that are speculated to be responsible for creating a SLAP lesion. These mechanisms range from single traumatic events to repetitive microtraumatic injuries.

This article is part of a 4-part series on SLAP Lesions

 

Traumatic SLAP Injuries

mechanism of slap tearTraumatic events, such as falling on an outstretched arm or bracing oneself during a motor vehicle accident, may result in a SLAP lesion due to compression of the superior joint surfaces superimposed with subluxation of the humeral head. Snyder referred to this as a pinching mechanism of injury. Other traumatic injury mechanisms include direct blows, falling onto the point of the shoulder, and forceful traction injuries of the upper extremity.

To be honest with you, I don’t know if this is actually the underlying cause of the SLAP lesion. I have questioned this theory in the past and don’t know the answer, but part of me at least wonders if these patients already had a certain degree of pathology to their superior labrum and the acute injury led to a MRI and diagnosis of a SLAP tear.

Essentially the MRI may have found an old SLAP tear.

 

Repetitive Overhead Activities

Repetitive overhead activity, such as throwing a baseball and other overhead sports, is another common mechanism of injury frequently responsible for producing SLAP injuries.

This is the type of SLAP lesion that we most often see in our athletes. In 1985, Dr. Andrews first hypothesized that SLAP pathology in overhead throwing athletes was the result of the high eccentric activity of the biceps brachii during the arm deceleration and follow-through phases of the overhead throw. To determine this, they applied electrical stimulation to the biceps during arthroscopic evaluation and noted that the biceps contraction raised the labrum off of the glenoid rim.

Peel Back SLAP Tear

Burkhart and Morgan have since hypothesized a “peel back” mechanism that produces SLAP lesion in the overhead athlete. They suggest that when the shoulder is placed in a position of abduction and maximal external rotation, the rotation produces a twist at the base of the biceps, transmitting torsional force to the anchor.

This mechanism has received a lot of attention and several studies seem to show its accuracy.

Pradham measured superior labral strain in a cadaveric model during each phase of the throwing motion. They noted that increased superior labral strain occurred during the late-cocking phase of throwing.

Another study from ASMI simulated each of these mechanisms using cadaveric models. Nine pairs of cadaveric shoulders were loaded to biceps anchor complex failure in either a position of simulated in-line loading (similar to the deceleration phase of throwing) or simulated peel back mechanism (similar to the cocking phase of overhead throwing). Results showed that 7 of 8 of the in-line loading group failed in the midsubstance of the biceps tendon with 1 of 8 fracturing at the supraglenoid tubercle. However, all 8 of the simulated peel back group failures resulted in a type II SLAP lesion. The ultimate strength of the biceps anchor was significantly different when the 2 loading techniques were compared. The biceps anchor demonstrated significantly higher ultimate strength with the in-line loading (508 N) as opposed to the ultimate strength seen during the peel back loading mechanism (202 N).

You can see photos of the study below.  The first photo is a normal glenoid with the labrum and attaching long head of the biceps.  The second photo is the simulation of the traction and eccentric biceps contraction.  The final photo is simulation of the peel-back lesion.

In theory, SLAP lesions most likely occur in overhead athletes from a combination of these 2 previously described forces. The eccentric biceps activity during deceleration may serve to weaken the biceps-labrum complex, while the torsional peel back force may result in the posterosuperior detachment of the labral anchor.

 

 

shoulder seminarLearn Exactly How I Evaluate and Treat the Shoulder

If you want to learn even more about the shoulder, my online course at ShoulderSeminar.com will teach you exactly how I evaluate and treat the shoulder.  It is packed with tons of educational content that will help you master the shoulder, including detailed information on the clinical examination and treatment of SLAP tears.

 

 

 

What Exactly Is a SLAP Tear? Top 5 Things You Need to Know About a Superior Labral Lesion

Superior Labral SLAP Tear**Updated in 2017**

A very common diagnosis for shoulder injuries is a superior labral tear, or SLAP tear.  SLAP stands for Superior Labral tear Anterior to Posterior.  There many different variations of SLAP tears, which have different levels of severity and treatment strategies.  Back in the day, surgeons would want to operate on all SLAP tears but we learned that some do well without surgery.  In fact, some SLAP tears aren’t even worrisome .

Understanding how a SLAP lesion occurs and what exactly is happening pathologically is extremely important to diagnose and treat these shoulder injuries appropriately.

This article is part of a 4-part series on SLAP Lesions

 

Classification of SLAP Lesions

As you can see in the figure, the long head of the biceps tendon inserts directly into the superior labrum.  There are several variations of injuries that can occur to the superior labrum where the biceps anchor attaches.

Following a retrospective review of 700 shoulder arthroscopies, Snyder et al: Arthroscopy 1990, identified 4 types of superior labrum lesions involving the biceps anchor. Collectively they termed these SLAP lesions, in reference to their anatomic location: Superior Labrum extending from Anterior to Posterior. This was the original definition but as we continue to learn more about SLAP tears, they certainly do not always extend from anterior to posterior. But, the most important concept to know is that a SLAP lesion is an injury to the superior labrum near the attachment of the biceps anchor.

SLAP Tear Classification

Type I SLAP Lesions

Type I SLAP lesions were described as being indicative of isolated fraying of the superior labrum with a firm attachment of the labrum to the glenoid. These lesions are typically degenerative in nature. At this time, it is currently believed that the majority of the active population may have a Type I SLAP lesion and this is often not even considered pathological by many surgeons.

 

Type II SLAP Lesions

Type II SLAP lesions are characterized by a detachment of the superior labrum and the origin of the tendon of the long head of the biceps brachii from the glenoid resulting in instability of the biceps-labral anchor. These is the most common type of SLAP tear. When we receive a script from a surgeon to treat a “SLAP repair” he or she is more than likely talking about a Type II SLAP and surgery to re-attach the labrum and biceps anchor.

Three distinct sub-categories of type II SLAP lesions have been further identified by Morgan et al: Arthroscopy ’90. They reported that in a series of 102 patients undergoing arthroscopic evaluation 37% presented with an anterosuperior lesion, 31% with a posterosuperior lesion, and 31% exhibited a combined anterior and superior lesion.

These findings are consistent with my clinical observations of patients. Different types of patients and mechanisms of injuries will result in slightly different Type II lesions. For example, the majority of overhead athletes present with posterosuperior lesions while individuals who have traumatic SLAP lesions typically present with anterosuperior lesions. These variations are important when selecting which special tests to perform based on the patient’s history and mechanism of injury.

 

Type III SLAP Lesions

Type III SLAP lesions are characterized by a bucket-handle tear of the labrum with an intact biceps insertion. The labrum tears and flips into the joint similar to a meniscus. The important concept here is that the biceps anchor is attached, unlike a Type II.

 

Type IV SLAP Lesions

Type IV SLAP lesions have a bucket-handle tear of the labrum that extends into the biceps tendon. In this lesion, instability of the biceps-labrum anchor is also present, similar to that seen in the type II SLAP lesion. This is basically a combination of a Type II and III lesion.

What is complicated about this classification system is the fact that the Type I-IV scale is not progressively more severe. For example a Type III SLAP lesion is not bigger, or more severe, or indicative to more pathology than a Type II SLAP lesion.
To further complicate things, Maffet et al: AJSM ’95 noted that 38% of the SLAP lesions identified in their retrospective review of 712 arthroscopies were not classifiable using the I-IV terminology previously defined by Snyder. They suggested expanding the classification scale for SLAP lesions to a total of 7 categories, adding descriptions for types V-VII.
  • Type V SLAP lesions are characterized by the presence of a Bankart lesion of the anterior capsule that extends into the anterior superior labrum.
  • Type VI SLAP lesion involve a disruption of the biceps tendon anchor with an anterior or posterior superior labral flap tear.
  • Type VII SLAP lesions are described as the extension of a SLAP lesion anteriorly to involve the area inferior to the middle glenohumeral ligament.

These 3 types typically involve a concomitant pathology in conjunction with a SLAP lesion. Although they provided further classification, this terminology has not caught on and is not frequently used. For example, most people will refer to a Type V SLAP as a Type II SLAP with a concomitant Bankart lesion.

Since then there have been even more classification types described in the literature, up to at least 10 that I know of, but don’t worry, nobody really uses them.

 

Top 5 things you need to know about classifying SLAP lesions

Here’s all you need to know about classifying SLAP tears:

  1. Just worry about Type I-IV SLAP lesions and realize that any classification system above Type IV just means that there was a concomitant injury in addition to the SLAP tear.
  2. You can break down and group Type I and Type III lesions together. Both involved degeneration of the labrum but the biceps anchor is attached. Thus, these are not unstable SLAP lesions and are not surgically repaired. This makes surgery (just a simple debridement) and physical therapy easier.
  3. You can also break down and group Type II and Type IV lesions together. Both involve a detached biceps anchor and require surgery to stabilize the biceps anchor. Type IV SLAP tears are much more uncommon and will involve the repair and a debridement of the bucket handle tear.
  4. Type II lesions are by far the most common that you will see in the clinic and are almost always what a surgeon is referring to when speaking of a “SLAP repair.”  That being said, we are seeing trends towards NOT repairing SLAP II lesions, as they may be more common than once expected.  This is especially true in overhead athletes.
  5. We all may have a Type I lesion, it is basically just fraying and degeneration of the labrum.

 

 

shoulder seminarLearn Exactly How I Evaluate and Treat the Shoulder

If you want to learn even more about the shoulder, my online course at ShoulderSeminar.com will teach you exactly how I evaluate and treat the shoulder.  It is packed with tons of educational content that will help you master the shoulder, including detailed information on the clinical examination and treatment of SLAP tears.