Current Practice for the Diagnosis of a SLAP Lesion: Systematic Review and Physician Survey.

PURPOSE: To evaluate current practice reported in the literature for making a SLAP lesion diagnosis and compare the findings with a survey sent to experienced shoulder surgeons assessing how they make a SLAP diagnosis.

METHODS: We performed a systematic review of articles reporting surgical repair of SLAP lesions, documenting the use of 4 diagnostic areas of evaluation: history, clinical examination, imaging, and diagnostic arthroscopy. A survey was distributed electronically to 175 surgeons with expertise in shoulder surgery. The survey listed common components within the 4 diagnostic areas and asked surgeons to indicate components they used in establishing the diagnosis. The 4 diagnostic areas were ranked from 1 to 4 (most to least important).

RESULTS: Of the articles, 23% reported using all 4 diagnostic areas, 58% used 3 areas, and 19% used 2 areas or fewer. Thirty-five percent did not report history components, 31% did not report clinical examination elements, 27% did not report imaging findings, and 4% did not report arthroscopic findings. Eight percent reported using a comprehensive history and examination but without describing specific symptoms or tests. The most common components reported in the literature were pain (42%), the active compression test (65%), magnetic resonance imaging/arthrography (65%), and tear/unstable biceps-labral complex (27%). A total of 70 surgeons (40%) responded to the survey. More specific history components, examination maneuvers, and imaging/arthroscopy variants were reported on the survey compared with the literature. Diagnostic arthroscopy and history ranked as the most important for a SLAP diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS: The current literature and practice for making the SLAP diagnosis are variable and inconsistent. The SLAP diagnosis appears to be a clinical impression; however, the criteria described within the literature vary among the evaluation areas and differ from the results of the survey. These types of variability may have a significant influence on consistency and accuracy in making the diagnosis of the SLAP injury, developing the subsequent treatment, and maximizing outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level III and IV studies with cross-sectional survey.