title: Current Practice for the Diagnosis of a SLAP Lesion: Systematic Review and Physician Survey.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  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.
  
  
  METHODS
  Level IV, systematic review of Level III and IV studies with cross-sectional survey.
authors: Shoulder Center of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, U.S.A.
authors: W Ben
authors: WB
authors: Kibler
authors: Shoulder Center of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, U.S.A.. Electronic address: ascia@lexclin.com.
authors: Aaron
authors: A
authors: Sciascia
mesh_terms: D001134:Arm Injuries / Q000175:diagnosis*; D001175:Arthrography; D001182:Arthroscopy; D003430:Cross-Sectional Studies; D051445:Fibrocartilage / Q000293:injuries* / Q000601:surgery; D061165:Glenoid Cavity / Q000293:injuries* / Q000601:surgery; D019538:Health Care Surveys; D006801:Humans; D010808:Physical Examination; D000070599:Shoulder Injuries; D012785:Shoulder Joint / Q000601:surgery