Makhni EC

The responsibilities of team physicians have increased dramatically since the early 19th century, when these physicians first appeared on the sidelines during football games.¹ Although the primary role of the team physician is to care for the athlete, other responsibilities include administrative and legal duties, equipment- and environment-related duties, teaching, and communication with parents, coaches, and other physicians.^2-4 These responsibilities differ greatly by the level of the athlete and the team being covered. For example, compared with high school and collegiate sport physicians, physicians caring for professional athletes may have increased interaction with the media.⁵

Despite the increasing demands and responsibilities of team physicians, it is important that they continue to advance the field of sports medicine through teaching and research.^3,6 Team physicians have direct access to athletes at multiple levels of competition, from novice to professional, and therefore have a unique understanding of the injuries that commonly affect these athletes. Efforts to both teach and study the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of these injuries have dramatically advanced the field of sports medicine. In fact, several advancements in sports medicine have come from team physicians, including advancements in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction,^7,8 shoulder arthroscopy,⁹ and “Tommy John” surgery,¹⁰ to name a few.

Given the important role of team physicians (particularly orthopedic team physicians) in advancing sports medicine, it is important to understand the degree to which team physicians at all levels of sport contribute to teaching and research.

We conducted a study to determine the overall academic involvement of orthopedic team physicians at all levels of sport, including the degree to which these physicians are affiliated with academic medical centers (by level of sport and by professional sport) and the quantity and impact of these physicians’ scientific publications. We hypothesized that orthopedic physician academic involvement would be higher at the professional level of sport than at the collegiate or high school level and that the degree of physician academic involvement would differ between professional sporting leagues.

Materials and Methods

In August 2012, we performed a comprehensive telephone- and Internet-based search to identify a sample of team physicians caring for athletes at the high school, collegiate, and professional levels of sport. Data were collected on all team physicians, regardless of medical specialty. We defined a physician as any person listed as having either a doctor of medicine (MD) or a doctor of osteopathic medicine (DO) degree. A physician listed as a team physician at 2 different levels of competition (high school, college, professional) was included in both cohorts. A physician listed as a team physician in 2 different professional sports leagues was included independently for both leagues. All other medical personnel, including athletic trainers, therapists, and nursing staff, were excluded. Data on our sample population were collected as follows:

1. High school. Performing a comprehensive database search through the US Department of Education, we generated a list of all 20,989 US schools that include grades 9 to 12.¹¹ We then used a random number generator (random.org) to randomly select a sample of 120 high schools. These schools were contacted by telephone and asked to identify the team physician(s) for their sports teams. Twenty of these schools reported not having an athletic team, so we randomly generated a list of 20 additional high schools. High schools that had an athletic team but denied having a team physician were included in the analysis.

2. College. We used the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) website (ncaa.org) to generate a list of all colleges affiliated with the NCAA. Of these colleges, 347 were Division I, 316 were Division II, and 443 were Division III. The random.org random number generator was used to generate a list of 40 schools for each division, for a total of 120 schools. An Internet-based search was then performed to identify any and all team physicians caring for athletes at that particular school. In select cases, telephone calls were made to determine all the team physicians involved in the care of athletes at that institution.

3. Professional. Team physician data were collected for 4 of the most popular professional sporting leagues¹²: Major League Baseball (MLB), National Basketball Association (NBA), National Football League (NFL), and National Hockey League (NHL). Each team’s official website was identified through its league website (mlb.com, nba.com, nfl.com, nhl.com), and the roster or directory listing of all team physicians was recorded. In 2 cases, the team’s medical personnel listing could not be retrieved through the Internet, and a telephone call had to be made to identify all team physicians. Team physicians were identified for 122 professional teams: 30 MLB, 30 NBA, 32 NFL, and 30 NHL.

For this study, all physicians were classified as either orthopedic or nonorthopedic. Orthopedic surgeons—the focus of this study—were defined as those who completed residency training in orthopedic surgery. Median number of orthopedic and nonorthopedic surgeons per team was calculated at the high school, collegiate, and professional levels.

After identifying all orthopedic team physicians, we performed additional Internet searches to determine any affiliation between each physician and an applicable academic medical center. Physicians were placed in 1 of 3 different categories based on “level” of academic affiliation. Orthopedists with no identifiable connection to an academic medical center were listed under none. The first 100 search results were studied before this determination was made. Orthopedists with any academic affiliation below the level of full professorship were placed in the category associate/assistant/adjunct professor, which included any physician who was an associate professor, adjunct professor, clinical instructor, or volunteer instructor at an academic medical center. Last, orthopedists listed as full professors were placed in the professor category.

Number of publications written by each orthopedic team physician was then calculated using SciVerse Scopus (scopus.com), a comprehensive abstract and citation database of research literature that offers complete coverage of the Medline and Embase databases.¹³ Scopus offers a Scopus Author Identifier, which assigns each author in Scopus a unique identification number.¹⁴ This number is based on an “algorithm that matches author names based on their affiliation, address, subject area, source title, dates of publication citations, and co-authors.”¹⁴ Authors whose names did not appear in Scopus were assumed to have no publications, and this was reported after cross-referencing with Medline to ensure no documents were missed. This study included all publications: original research articles, reviews, letters, and commentaries. Any level of authorship (first, second, etc) was included. All publications were scanned, and duplicate listings were not included. Median number of publications per orthopedic team physician was calculated at the high school, college, and professional levels.

We also determined the h-index for each orthopedic team physician. The h-index is used to measure the impact of the published work of a scholar: “A scientist has index h if h of his/her papers have at least h citations each, and the other papers have no more than h citations each.”¹⁵ For example, an h-index of 12 means that, out of an author’s total number of publications, 12 have been cited at least 12 times, and all of his or her other publications have been cited fewer than 12 times. All authors in Scopus are automatically assigned h-indexes, and we collected these numbers.¹⁶ Of note, citations for articles published before 1996 are not included in the h-index calculation. Median h-index score per orthopedic team physician was calculated at the high school, college, and professional levels.

Analysis of variance was used to compare continuous data (eg, number of publications per surgeon) across different groups (eg, physicians from respective sports). Chi-square tests were used to detect whole-number differences between groups (eg, difference in number of physicians per team across the various professional sports leagues). Statistical significance was set at P < .05.

Results

We identified 1054 team physicians among the 362 total high schools, colleges, and professional sports teams included in this study. Of the 1054 physicians, 678 (64%) were orthopedic surgeons (Table 1). Seventy-two (60%) of the 120 high schools did not have a team physician, whereas all the colleges and professional teams did. Number of orthopedic surgeons per team was higher at the collegiate level (2.29; range, 0-11) and professional level (2.21; range, 1-9) than at the high school level (1.11; range, 0-24) (Table 1). Median number of nonorthopedic surgeons was highest in professional sports (1.88; range, 0-9) followed by college sports (1.06; range, 0-9) and high school sports (0.16; range, 0-2) (Table 1).

Of the 678 orthopedic team physicians, 298 (44%) were officially affiliated with an academic medical center, either as clinical instructor, associate/adjunct professor, or full professor. Percentage of orthopedists affiliated with an academic medical center was highest in professional sports (173/270, 64%) followed by collegiate sports (98/275, 36%) and high school sports (27/133, 20%) (P < .001, Table 2). Percentage of orthopedists identified as full professors was highest at the professional level (42/270, 16%) followed by the collegiate level (14/275, 5.1%) and the high school level (3/133, 2.3%) (P < .001, Table 2).

We found 12,036 publications written by the 678 orthopedic team physicians included in this study. Median number of publications per orthopedist was significantly higher in professional sports (30.6; range, 0-460) than in collegiate sports (10.7; range, 0-581) and high school sports (6.0; range, 0-220) (P < .001). Number of authors with more than 25 publications was highest at the professional level (82) followed by the collegiate level (27) and the high school level (7) (Table 3). Median number of publications per orthopedist was also higher at the professional level (12) than at the collegiate level (2) and high school level (1). Median h-index was higher among orthopedists in professional sports (7.1; range, 0-50) than at colleges (2.7; range, 0-63) and high schools (1.8; range, 0-32) (P < .001). Median h-index was also significantly higher at the professional level (5) than at the collegiate level (1) and high school level (0).

At the professional level of sports, we identified 499 team physicians (270 orthopedic, 54%; 229 nonorthopedic, 46%). Median number of orthopedic team physicians varied by sport, with MLB (2.8; range, 1-8) and the NFL (2.4; range, 1-4) having relatively more of these physicians than the NHL (2.0; range, 1-6) and the NBA (1.7; range, 1-9) (Table 4). Percentage of orthopedic team physicians affiliated with academic medical centers was highest in MLB (58/83, 69.9%) followed by the NFL (47/76, 61.8%), the NHL (37/60, 61.7%), and the NBA (31/51, 60.8%) (Table 5). Median number of publications by orthopedists also varied by sport, with the highest number in MLB (37.9; range, 0-225) followed by the NBA (32.0; range, 0-227) and the NFL (30.4; range, 0-460), with the lowest number in the NHL (20.7; range, 0-144) (Table 6). Median number of publications was the same (17.5) in MLB and the NFL and lower in the NBA (11) and the NHL (7.5). Median h-index was highest in the NFL (8.2; range, 0-50) and MLB (7.9; range, 0-32) followed by the NBA (6.6; range, 0-35) and the NHL (4.9; range, 0-20) (Table 7) Median h-index was the same (6) in MLB and the NFL and lower (3) in the NBA and the NHL.

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first study of academic involvement and the research activities of orthopedic team physicians at the high school, college, and professional levels of sport. We found that, on average, there were almost twice as many orthopedists at the collegiate and professional levels than at the high school level—likely because 72 of the 120 high schools randomly selected did not have a team physician, despite having sports teams. We can attribute this to the organizational structure of teams in a high school setting, where it is fairly common that no medically educated health care provider is readily available for the student athletes.⁵ Although the median number of orthopedists was similar at the collegiate and professional levels, the number of nonorthopedic team physicians was higher at the professional level than at the collegiate level. Although most collegiate and professional teams have an internist and an orthopedist on staff, medical staff at the professional level may also include several subspecialists from a variety of medical fields (eg, dental medicine, ophthalmology, neurology).¹⁷

We found that a significantly larger proportion of orthopedists at the professional level (64%) were affiliated with academic medical centers as associate/adjunct professors and full professors compared with orthopedists at the collegiate level (36%) and high school level (20%). The academic relationship with collegiate teams was much lower than expected. Regarding professional sports, however, this finding confirmed our hypothesis, and the explanation is likely multifactorial and historical. Moreover, the median number of publications was higher for orthopedists at the professional level (30.8) than at the collegiate level (10.7) and high school level (6). In the late 1940s and early 1950s, many orthopedic team physicians entered into contracts with major universities.⁴ For many physicians, this contractual relationship increased their prestige, and some orthopedic groups were alleged to have endorsed scholarships at those schools.⁴ Given the high level of publicity and scrutiny surrounding medical decisions at the professional level of sports, it is possible that professional sports teams specifically seek orthopedists who are well respected within academia. Moreover, contracts between universities/academic medical centers and professional teams may mandate that a faculty member from that organization provide the orthopedic/medical care for the team. This may also increase the likelihood of professional teams being paired with academic orthopedic physicians. However, such contractual agreements are made between professional teams and large private medical groups as well.

In addition to measuring quantity of publications, we used the h-index to measure their quality. Following the same pattern as the publication rate, median h-index per orthopedic team physician was significantly higher at the professional level (7.1) than at the collegiate level (2.7) and high school level (1.8). As with publication volume, this is not entirely surprising, as h-index has been shown to correlate with academic rank in other surgical specialties,¹⁸ and there was a higher percentage of academic physicians at the professional level than at the collegiate and high school levels.

At the professional level of sports, 56% of all team physicians were orthopedic surgeons. Orthopedists caring for MLB teams had the highest median number of publications (37.9), followed by the NBA (32.0), the NFL (30.4), and the NHL (20.7). One likely explanation is the higher percentage of MLB physicians affiliated with academic medical centers. Regarding the h-index, MLB and NFL physicians had the highest values (7.9 and 8.2, respectively).

Our study had several limitations. First, we may not have captured data on all the team physicians at the high school, college, and professional levels. By following a detailed protocol in identifying surgeons, however, we tried to minimize the impact of any such omissions. In addition, teams may have had many unofficial consultants acting as team physicians, whether orthopedic or nonorthopedic, and, if these physicians were not listed in an official capacity, they may have been omitted from this study. We further realize that a true measure of academic productivity should also include book chapters and books published, research grants awarded, and patents registered. By including only peer-reviewed articles, we omitted these other criteria.

To our knowledge, the data presented here represent the first attempt to quantify the academic involvement and research productivity of orthopedic team physicians at the high school, college, and professional levels of sport. These data help us understand how research productivity varies by orthopedic team physicians at different levels of sport and may be useful to those considering a career as a team physician, as they can better evaluate their own productivity in the context of team physicians across different levels of competition.

The responsibilities of team physicians have increased dramatically since the early 19th century, when these physicians first appeared on the sidelines during football games.¹ Although the primary role of the team physician is to care for the athlete, other responsibilities include administrative and legal duties, equipment- and environment-related duties, teaching, and communication with parents, coaches, and other physicians.^2-4 These responsibilities differ greatly by the level of the athlete and the team being covered. For example, compared with high school and collegiate sport physicians, physicians caring for professional athletes may have increased interaction with the media.⁵

Despite the increasing demands and responsibilities of team physicians, it is important that they continue to advance the field of sports medicine through teaching and research.^3,6 Team physicians have direct access to athletes at multiple levels of competition, from novice to professional, and therefore have a unique understanding of the injuries that commonly affect these athletes. Efforts to both teach and study the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of these injuries have dramatically advanced the field of sports medicine. In fact, several advancements in sports medicine have come from team physicians, including advancements in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction,^7,8 shoulder arthroscopy,⁹ and “Tommy John” surgery,¹⁰ to name a few.

Given the important role of team physicians (particularly orthopedic team physicians) in advancing sports medicine, it is important to understand the degree to which team physicians at all levels of sport contribute to teaching and research.

We conducted a study to determine the overall academic involvement of orthopedic team physicians at all levels of sport, including the degree to which these physicians are affiliated with academic medical centers (by level of sport and by professional sport) and the quantity and impact of these physicians’ scientific publications. We hypothesized that orthopedic physician academic involvement would be higher at the professional level of sport than at the collegiate or high school level and that the degree of physician academic involvement would differ between professional sporting leagues.

Materials and Methods

In August 2012, we performed a comprehensive telephone- and Internet-based search to identify a sample of team physicians caring for athletes at the high school, collegiate, and professional levels of sport. Data were collected on all team physicians, regardless of medical specialty. We defined a physician as any person listed as having either a doctor of medicine (MD) or a doctor of osteopathic medicine (DO) degree. A physician listed as a team physician at 2 different levels of competition (high school, college, professional) was included in both cohorts. A physician listed as a team physician in 2 different professional sports leagues was included independently for both leagues. All other medical personnel, including athletic trainers, therapists, and nursing staff, were excluded. Data on our sample population were collected as follows:

1. High school. Performing a comprehensive database search through the US Department of Education, we generated a list of all 20,989 US schools that include grades 9 to 12.¹¹ We then used a random number generator (random.org) to randomly select a sample of 120 high schools. These schools were contacted by telephone and asked to identify the team physician(s) for their sports teams. Twenty of these schools reported not having an athletic team, so we randomly generated a list of 20 additional high schools. High schools that had an athletic team but denied having a team physician were included in the analysis.

2. College. We used the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) website (ncaa.org) to generate a list of all colleges affiliated with the NCAA. Of these colleges, 347 were Division I, 316 were Division II, and 443 were Division III. The random.org random number generator was used to generate a list of 40 schools for each division, for a total of 120 schools. An Internet-based search was then performed to identify any and all team physicians caring for athletes at that particular school. In select cases, telephone calls were made to determine all the team physicians involved in the care of athletes at that institution.

3. Professional. Team physician data were collected for 4 of the most popular professional sporting leagues¹²: Major League Baseball (MLB), National Basketball Association (NBA), National Football League (NFL), and National Hockey League (NHL). Each team’s official website was identified through its league website (mlb.com, nba.com, nfl.com, nhl.com), and the roster or directory listing of all team physicians was recorded. In 2 cases, the team’s medical personnel listing could not be retrieved through the Internet, and a telephone call had to be made to identify all team physicians. Team physicians were identified for 122 professional teams: 30 MLB, 30 NBA, 32 NFL, and 30 NHL.

For this study, all physicians were classified as either orthopedic or nonorthopedic. Orthopedic surgeons—the focus of this study—were defined as those who completed residency training in orthopedic surgery. Median number of orthopedic and nonorthopedic surgeons per team was calculated at the high school, collegiate, and professional levels.

After identifying all orthopedic team physicians, we performed additional Internet searches to determine any affiliation between each physician and an applicable academic medical center. Physicians were placed in 1 of 3 different categories based on “level” of academic affiliation. Orthopedists with no identifiable connection to an academic medical center were listed under none. The first 100 search results were studied before this determination was made. Orthopedists with any academic affiliation below the level of full professorship were placed in the category associate/assistant/adjunct professor, which included any physician who was an associate professor, adjunct professor, clinical instructor, or volunteer instructor at an academic medical center. Last, orthopedists listed as full professors were placed in the professor category.

Number of publications written by each orthopedic team physician was then calculated using SciVerse Scopus (scopus.com), a comprehensive abstract and citation database of research literature that offers complete coverage of the Medline and Embase databases.¹³ Scopus offers a Scopus Author Identifier, which assigns each author in Scopus a unique identification number.¹⁴ This number is based on an “algorithm that matches author names based on their affiliation, address, subject area, source title, dates of publication citations, and co-authors.”¹⁴ Authors whose names did not appear in Scopus were assumed to have no publications, and this was reported after cross-referencing with Medline to ensure no documents were missed. This study included all publications: original research articles, reviews, letters, and commentaries. Any level of authorship (first, second, etc) was included. All publications were scanned, and duplicate listings were not included. Median number of publications per orthopedic team physician was calculated at the high school, college, and professional levels.

We also determined the h-index for each orthopedic team physician. The h-index is used to measure the impact of the published work of a scholar: “A scientist has index h if h of his/her papers have at least h citations each, and the other papers have no more than h citations each.”¹⁵ For example, an h-index of 12 means that, out of an author’s total number of publications, 12 have been cited at least 12 times, and all of his or her other publications have been cited fewer than 12 times. All authors in Scopus are automatically assigned h-indexes, and we collected these numbers.¹⁶ Of note, citations for articles published before 1996 are not included in the h-index calculation. Median h-index score per orthopedic team physician was calculated at the high school, college, and professional levels.

Analysis of variance was used to compare continuous data (eg, number of publications per surgeon) across different groups (eg, physicians from respective sports). Chi-square tests were used to detect whole-number differences between groups (eg, difference in number of physicians per team across the various professional sports leagues). Statistical significance was set at P < .05.

Results

We identified 1054 team physicians among the 362 total high schools, colleges, and professional sports teams included in this study. Of the 1054 physicians, 678 (64%) were orthopedic surgeons (Table 1). Seventy-two (60%) of the 120 high schools did not have a team physician, whereas all the colleges and professional teams did. Number of orthopedic surgeons per team was higher at the collegiate level (2.29; range, 0-11) and professional level (2.21; range, 1-9) than at the high school level (1.11; range, 0-24) (Table 1). Median number of nonorthopedic surgeons was highest in professional sports (1.88; range, 0-9) followed by college sports (1.06; range, 0-9) and high school sports (0.16; range, 0-2) (Table 1).

Of the 678 orthopedic team physicians, 298 (44%) were officially affiliated with an academic medical center, either as clinical instructor, associate/adjunct professor, or full professor. Percentage of orthopedists affiliated with an academic medical center was highest in professional sports (173/270, 64%) followed by collegiate sports (98/275, 36%) and high school sports (27/133, 20%) (P < .001, Table 2). Percentage of orthopedists identified as full professors was highest at the professional level (42/270, 16%) followed by the collegiate level (14/275, 5.1%) and the high school level (3/133, 2.3%) (P < .001, Table 2).

We found 12,036 publications written by the 678 orthopedic team physicians included in this study. Median number of publications per orthopedist was significantly higher in professional sports (30.6; range, 0-460) than in collegiate sports (10.7; range, 0-581) and high school sports (6.0; range, 0-220) (P < .001). Number of authors with more than 25 publications was highest at the professional level (82) followed by the collegiate level (27) and the high school level (7) (Table 3). Median number of publications per orthopedist was also higher at the professional level (12) than at the collegiate level (2) and high school level (1). Median h-index was higher among orthopedists in professional sports (7.1; range, 0-50) than at colleges (2.7; range, 0-63) and high schools (1.8; range, 0-32) (P < .001). Median h-index was also significantly higher at the professional level (5) than at the collegiate level (1) and high school level (0).

At the professional level of sports, we identified 499 team physicians (270 orthopedic, 54%; 229 nonorthopedic, 46%). Median number of orthopedic team physicians varied by sport, with MLB (2.8; range, 1-8) and the NFL (2.4; range, 1-4) having relatively more of these physicians than the NHL (2.0; range, 1-6) and the NBA (1.7; range, 1-9) (Table 4). Percentage of orthopedic team physicians affiliated with academic medical centers was highest in MLB (58/83, 69.9%) followed by the NFL (47/76, 61.8%), the NHL (37/60, 61.7%), and the NBA (31/51, 60.8%) (Table 5). Median number of publications by orthopedists also varied by sport, with the highest number in MLB (37.9; range, 0-225) followed by the NBA (32.0; range, 0-227) and the NFL (30.4; range, 0-460), with the lowest number in the NHL (20.7; range, 0-144) (Table 6). Median number of publications was the same (17.5) in MLB and the NFL and lower in the NBA (11) and the NHL (7.5). Median h-index was highest in the NFL (8.2; range, 0-50) and MLB (7.9; range, 0-32) followed by the NBA (6.6; range, 0-35) and the NHL (4.9; range, 0-20) (Table 7) Median h-index was the same (6) in MLB and the NFL and lower (3) in the NBA and the NHL.

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first study of academic involvement and the research activities of orthopedic team physicians at the high school, college, and professional levels of sport. We found that, on average, there were almost twice as many orthopedists at the collegiate and professional levels than at the high school level—likely because 72 of the 120 high schools randomly selected did not have a team physician, despite having sports teams. We can attribute this to the organizational structure of teams in a high school setting, where it is fairly common that no medically educated health care provider is readily available for the student athletes.⁵ Although the median number of orthopedists was similar at the collegiate and professional levels, the number of nonorthopedic team physicians was higher at the professional level than at the collegiate level. Although most collegiate and professional teams have an internist and an orthopedist on staff, medical staff at the professional level may also include several subspecialists from a variety of medical fields (eg, dental medicine, ophthalmology, neurology).¹⁷

We found that a significantly larger proportion of orthopedists at the professional level (64%) were affiliated with academic medical centers as associate/adjunct professors and full professors compared with orthopedists at the collegiate level (36%) and high school level (20%). The academic relationship with collegiate teams was much lower than expected. Regarding professional sports, however, this finding confirmed our hypothesis, and the explanation is likely multifactorial and historical. Moreover, the median number of publications was higher for orthopedists at the professional level (30.8) than at the collegiate level (10.7) and high school level (6). In the late 1940s and early 1950s, many orthopedic team physicians entered into contracts with major universities.⁴ For many physicians, this contractual relationship increased their prestige, and some orthopedic groups were alleged to have endorsed scholarships at those schools.⁴ Given the high level of publicity and scrutiny surrounding medical decisions at the professional level of sports, it is possible that professional sports teams specifically seek orthopedists who are well respected within academia. Moreover, contracts between universities/academic medical centers and professional teams may mandate that a faculty member from that organization provide the orthopedic/medical care for the team. This may also increase the likelihood of professional teams being paired with academic orthopedic physicians. However, such contractual agreements are made between professional teams and large private medical groups as well.

In addition to measuring quantity of publications, we used the h-index to measure their quality. Following the same pattern as the publication rate, median h-index per orthopedic team physician was significantly higher at the professional level (7.1) than at the collegiate level (2.7) and high school level (1.8). As with publication volume, this is not entirely surprising, as h-index has been shown to correlate with academic rank in other surgical specialties,¹⁸ and there was a higher percentage of academic physicians at the professional level than at the collegiate and high school levels.

At the professional level of sports, 56% of all team physicians were orthopedic surgeons. Orthopedists caring for MLB teams had the highest median number of publications (37.9), followed by the NBA (32.0), the NFL (30.4), and the NHL (20.7). One likely explanation is the higher percentage of MLB physicians affiliated with academic medical centers. Regarding the h-index, MLB and NFL physicians had the highest values (7.9 and 8.2, respectively).

Our study had several limitations. First, we may not have captured data on all the team physicians at the high school, college, and professional levels. By following a detailed protocol in identifying surgeons, however, we tried to minimize the impact of any such omissions. In addition, teams may have had many unofficial consultants acting as team physicians, whether orthopedic or nonorthopedic, and, if these physicians were not listed in an official capacity, they may have been omitted from this study. We further realize that a true measure of academic productivity should also include book chapters and books published, research grants awarded, and patents registered. By including only peer-reviewed articles, we omitted these other criteria.

To our knowledge, the data presented here represent the first attempt to quantify the academic involvement and research productivity of orthopedic team physicians at the high school, college, and professional levels of sport. These data help us understand how research productivity varies by orthopedic team physicians at different levels of sport and may be useful to those considering a career as a team physician, as they can better evaluate their own productivity in the context of team physicians across different levels of competition.

The responsibilities of team physicians have increased dramatically since the early 19th century, when these physicians first appeared on the sidelines during football games.¹ Although the primary role of the team physician is to care for the athlete, other responsibilities include administrative and legal duties, equipment- and environment-related duties, teaching, and communication with parents, coaches, and other physicians.^2-4 These responsibilities differ greatly by the level of the athlete and the team being covered. For example, compared with high school and collegiate sport physicians, physicians caring for professional athletes may have increased interaction with the media.⁵

Despite the increasing demands and responsibilities of team physicians, it is important that they continue to advance the field of sports medicine through teaching and research.^3,6 Team physicians have direct access to athletes at multiple levels of competition, from novice to professional, and therefore have a unique understanding of the injuries that commonly affect these athletes. Efforts to both teach and study the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of these injuries have dramatically advanced the field of sports medicine. In fact, several advancements in sports medicine have come from team physicians, including advancements in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction,^7,8 shoulder arthroscopy,⁹ and “Tommy John” surgery,¹⁰ to name a few.

Given the important role of team physicians (particularly orthopedic team physicians) in advancing sports medicine, it is important to understand the degree to which team physicians at all levels of sport contribute to teaching and research.

We conducted a study to determine the overall academic involvement of orthopedic team physicians at all levels of sport, including the degree to which these physicians are affiliated with academic medical centers (by level of sport and by professional sport) and the quantity and impact of these physicians’ scientific publications. We hypothesized that orthopedic physician academic involvement would be higher at the professional level of sport than at the collegiate or high school level and that the degree of physician academic involvement would differ between professional sporting leagues.

Materials and Methods

In August 2012, we performed a comprehensive telephone- and Internet-based search to identify a sample of team physicians caring for athletes at the high school, collegiate, and professional levels of sport. Data were collected on all team physicians, regardless of medical specialty. We defined a physician as any person listed as having either a doctor of medicine (MD) or a doctor of osteopathic medicine (DO) degree. A physician listed as a team physician at 2 different levels of competition (high school, college, professional) was included in both cohorts. A physician listed as a team physician in 2 different professional sports leagues was included independently for both leagues. All other medical personnel, including athletic trainers, therapists, and nursing staff, were excluded. Data on our sample population were collected as follows:

1. High school. Performing a comprehensive database search through the US Department of Education, we generated a list of all 20,989 US schools that include grades 9 to 12.¹¹ We then used a random number generator (random.org) to randomly select a sample of 120 high schools. These schools were contacted by telephone and asked to identify the team physician(s) for their sports teams. Twenty of these schools reported not having an athletic team, so we randomly generated a list of 20 additional high schools. High schools that had an athletic team but denied having a team physician were included in the analysis.

2. College. We used the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) website (ncaa.org) to generate a list of all colleges affiliated with the NCAA. Of these colleges, 347 were Division I, 316 were Division II, and 443 were Division III. The random.org random number generator was used to generate a list of 40 schools for each division, for a total of 120 schools. An Internet-based search was then performed to identify any and all team physicians caring for athletes at that particular school. In select cases, telephone calls were made to determine all the team physicians involved in the care of athletes at that institution.

3. Professional. Team physician data were collected for 4 of the most popular professional sporting leagues¹²: Major League Baseball (MLB), National Basketball Association (NBA), National Football League (NFL), and National Hockey League (NHL). Each team’s official website was identified through its league website (mlb.com, nba.com, nfl.com, nhl.com), and the roster or directory listing of all team physicians was recorded. In 2 cases, the team’s medical personnel listing could not be retrieved through the Internet, and a telephone call had to be made to identify all team physicians. Team physicians were identified for 122 professional teams: 30 MLB, 30 NBA, 32 NFL, and 30 NHL.

For this study, all physicians were classified as either orthopedic or nonorthopedic. Orthopedic surgeons—the focus of this study—were defined as those who completed residency training in orthopedic surgery. Median number of orthopedic and nonorthopedic surgeons per team was calculated at the high school, collegiate, and professional levels.

After identifying all orthopedic team physicians, we performed additional Internet searches to determine any affiliation between each physician and an applicable academic medical center. Physicians were placed in 1 of 3 different categories based on “level” of academic affiliation. Orthopedists with no identifiable connection to an academic medical center were listed under none. The first 100 search results were studied before this determination was made. Orthopedists with any academic affiliation below the level of full professorship were placed in the category associate/assistant/adjunct professor, which included any physician who was an associate professor, adjunct professor, clinical instructor, or volunteer instructor at an academic medical center. Last, orthopedists listed as full professors were placed in the professor category.

Number of publications written by each orthopedic team physician was then calculated using SciVerse Scopus (scopus.com), a comprehensive abstract and citation database of research literature that offers complete coverage of the Medline and Embase databases.¹³ Scopus offers a Scopus Author Identifier, which assigns each author in Scopus a unique identification number.¹⁴ This number is based on an “algorithm that matches author names based on their affiliation, address, subject area, source title, dates of publication citations, and co-authors.”¹⁴ Authors whose names did not appear in Scopus were assumed to have no publications, and this was reported after cross-referencing with Medline to ensure no documents were missed. This study included all publications: original research articles, reviews, letters, and commentaries. Any level of authorship (first, second, etc) was included. All publications were scanned, and duplicate listings were not included. Median number of publications per orthopedic team physician was calculated at the high school, college, and professional levels.

We also determined the h-index for each orthopedic team physician. The h-index is used to measure the impact of the published work of a scholar: “A scientist has index h if h of his/her papers have at least h citations each, and the other papers have no more than h citations each.”¹⁵ For example, an h-index of 12 means that, out of an author’s total number of publications, 12 have been cited at least 12 times, and all of his or her other publications have been cited fewer than 12 times. All authors in Scopus are automatically assigned h-indexes, and we collected these numbers.¹⁶ Of note, citations for articles published before 1996 are not included in the h-index calculation. Median h-index score per orthopedic team physician was calculated at the high school, college, and professional levels.

Analysis of variance was used to compare continuous data (eg, number of publications per surgeon) across different groups (eg, physicians from respective sports). Chi-square tests were used to detect whole-number differences between groups (eg, difference in number of physicians per team across the various professional sports leagues). Statistical significance was set at P < .05.

Results

We identified 1054 team physicians among the 362 total high schools, colleges, and professional sports teams included in this study. Of the 1054 physicians, 678 (64%) were orthopedic surgeons (Table 1). Seventy-two (60%) of the 120 high schools did not have a team physician, whereas all the colleges and professional teams did. Number of orthopedic surgeons per team was higher at the collegiate level (2.29; range, 0-11) and professional level (2.21; range, 1-9) than at the high school level (1.11; range, 0-24) (Table 1). Median number of nonorthopedic surgeons was highest in professional sports (1.88; range, 0-9) followed by college sports (1.06; range, 0-9) and high school sports (0.16; range, 0-2) (Table 1).

Of the 678 orthopedic team physicians, 298 (44%) were officially affiliated with an academic medical center, either as clinical instructor, associate/adjunct professor, or full professor. Percentage of orthopedists affiliated with an academic medical center was highest in professional sports (173/270, 64%) followed by collegiate sports (98/275, 36%) and high school sports (27/133, 20%) (P < .001, Table 2). Percentage of orthopedists identified as full professors was highest at the professional level (42/270, 16%) followed by the collegiate level (14/275, 5.1%) and the high school level (3/133, 2.3%) (P < .001, Table 2).

We found 12,036 publications written by the 678 orthopedic team physicians included in this study. Median number of publications per orthopedist was significantly higher in professional sports (30.6; range, 0-460) than in collegiate sports (10.7; range, 0-581) and high school sports (6.0; range, 0-220) (P < .001). Number of authors with more than 25 publications was highest at the professional level (82) followed by the collegiate level (27) and the high school level (7) (Table 3). Median number of publications per orthopedist was also higher at the professional level (12) than at the collegiate level (2) and high school level (1). Median h-index was higher among orthopedists in professional sports (7.1; range, 0-50) than at colleges (2.7; range, 0-63) and high schools (1.8; range, 0-32) (P < .001). Median h-index was also significantly higher at the professional level (5) than at the collegiate level (1) and high school level (0).

At the professional level of sports, we identified 499 team physicians (270 orthopedic, 54%; 229 nonorthopedic, 46%). Median number of orthopedic team physicians varied by sport, with MLB (2.8; range, 1-8) and the NFL (2.4; range, 1-4) having relatively more of these physicians than the NHL (2.0; range, 1-6) and the NBA (1.7; range, 1-9) (Table 4). Percentage of orthopedic team physicians affiliated with academic medical centers was highest in MLB (58/83, 69.9%) followed by the NFL (47/76, 61.8%), the NHL (37/60, 61.7%), and the NBA (31/51, 60.8%) (Table 5). Median number of publications by orthopedists also varied by sport, with the highest number in MLB (37.9; range, 0-225) followed by the NBA (32.0; range, 0-227) and the NFL (30.4; range, 0-460), with the lowest number in the NHL (20.7; range, 0-144) (Table 6). Median number of publications was the same (17.5) in MLB and the NFL and lower in the NBA (11) and the NHL (7.5). Median h-index was highest in the NFL (8.2; range, 0-50) and MLB (7.9; range, 0-32) followed by the NBA (6.6; range, 0-35) and the NHL (4.9; range, 0-20) (Table 7) Median h-index was the same (6) in MLB and the NFL and lower (3) in the NBA and the NHL.

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first study of academic involvement and the research activities of orthopedic team physicians at the high school, college, and professional levels of sport. We found that, on average, there were almost twice as many orthopedists at the collegiate and professional levels than at the high school level—likely because 72 of the 120 high schools randomly selected did not have a team physician, despite having sports teams. We can attribute this to the organizational structure of teams in a high school setting, where it is fairly common that no medically educated health care provider is readily available for the student athletes.⁵ Although the median number of orthopedists was similar at the collegiate and professional levels, the number of nonorthopedic team physicians was higher at the professional level than at the collegiate level. Although most collegiate and professional teams have an internist and an orthopedist on staff, medical staff at the professional level may also include several subspecialists from a variety of medical fields (eg, dental medicine, ophthalmology, neurology).¹⁷

We found that a significantly larger proportion of orthopedists at the professional level (64%) were affiliated with academic medical centers as associate/adjunct professors and full professors compared with orthopedists at the collegiate level (36%) and high school level (20%). The academic relationship with collegiate teams was much lower than expected. Regarding professional sports, however, this finding confirmed our hypothesis, and the explanation is likely multifactorial and historical. Moreover, the median number of publications was higher for orthopedists at the professional level (30.8) than at the collegiate level (10.7) and high school level (6). In the late 1940s and early 1950s, many orthopedic team physicians entered into contracts with major universities.⁴ For many physicians, this contractual relationship increased their prestige, and some orthopedic groups were alleged to have endorsed scholarships at those schools.⁴ Given the high level of publicity and scrutiny surrounding medical decisions at the professional level of sports, it is possible that professional sports teams specifically seek orthopedists who are well respected within academia. Moreover, contracts between universities/academic medical centers and professional teams may mandate that a faculty member from that organization provide the orthopedic/medical care for the team. This may also increase the likelihood of professional teams being paired with academic orthopedic physicians. However, such contractual agreements are made between professional teams and large private medical groups as well.

In addition to measuring quantity of publications, we used the h-index to measure their quality. Following the same pattern as the publication rate, median h-index per orthopedic team physician was significantly higher at the professional level (7.1) than at the collegiate level (2.7) and high school level (1.8). As with publication volume, this is not entirely surprising, as h-index has been shown to correlate with academic rank in other surgical specialties,¹⁸ and there was a higher percentage of academic physicians at the professional level than at the collegiate and high school levels.

At the professional level of sports, 56% of all team physicians were orthopedic surgeons. Orthopedists caring for MLB teams had the highest median number of publications (37.9), followed by the NBA (32.0), the NFL (30.4), and the NHL (20.7). One likely explanation is the higher percentage of MLB physicians affiliated with academic medical centers. Regarding the h-index, MLB and NFL physicians had the highest values (7.9 and 8.2, respectively).

Our study had several limitations. First, we may not have captured data on all the team physicians at the high school, college, and professional levels. By following a detailed protocol in identifying surgeons, however, we tried to minimize the impact of any such omissions. In addition, teams may have had many unofficial consultants acting as team physicians, whether orthopedic or nonorthopedic, and, if these physicians were not listed in an official capacity, they may have been omitted from this study. We further realize that a true measure of academic productivity should also include book chapters and books published, research grants awarded, and patents registered. By including only peer-reviewed articles, we omitted these other criteria.

To our knowledge, the data presented here represent the first attempt to quantify the academic involvement and research productivity of orthopedic team physicians at the high school, college, and professional levels of sport. These data help us understand how research productivity varies by orthopedic team physicians at different levels of sport and may be useful to those considering a career as a team physician, as they can better evaluate their own productivity in the context of team physicians across different levels of competition.

The overhead athlete’s shoulder is exposed to extremes of stress and range of motion (ROM), predisposing this joint to unique injury patterns. Prompt diagnosis and management begin with a comprehensive history and a physical examination, supplemented by imaging studies as needed. Furthermore, the throwing shoulder undergoes adaptive changes, such as partial undersurface rotator cuff tears and capsular laxity. Imaging studies typically demonstrate abnormalities in asymptomatic throwers. Therefore, clinicians must be skilled in history taking and physical examination in throwing athletes to accurately determine the cause of symptoms and provide optimal treatment. This primer provides orthopedic surgeons with the key points in performing a thorough physical examination of the shoulder in overhead athletes.

When working with overhead athletes, surgeons must elicit the precise nature of symptoms. For example, it is important to distinguish pain from fatigue, as well as complaints related purely to decline in performance. Often, collaboration with the player’s parent or coach may help clarify the chief complaint. In addition, surgeons must have an intricate knowledge of the various stages of the overhead motion, as symptoms in specific stages (late cocking/early acceleration) may raise suspicion for distinctive pathology (labral/biceps complex). Last, it is imperative to understand that the shoulder represents only one part of the kinetic chain in overhead athletes. Successful throwing relies on integrity of the entire kinetic chain, starting with the lower extremity and trunk, extending through the spine, scapula, and shoulder, and terminating with the hand and fingers. Pathology anywhere in the chain must be evaluated and addressed.

When examining the shoulder in overhead athletes, surgeons must address several anatomical structures, both bony and soft tissue. Proper examination begins with comprehensive assessment of the ROM and strength of the various muscles around the shoulder, along with visual inspection to identify any asymmetry of these structures. In addition, the scapulothoracic structures must be examined in detail to rule out underlying dyskinesis. The capsular and ligamentous components of the shoulder joint must be further assessed to note any capsular contracture causing glenohumeral internal rotation deficit (GIRD) or any pathology with the rotator cuff or labral/biceps complex. Last, a comprehensive neurovascular examination should be performed to rule out any compression or neuropathy affecting the shoulder and overhead motion. Findings from the physical examination may then require further imaging to correlate the history and physical examination findings.

1. Inspection, palpation, strength testing

Every examination of the shoulder must begin with visual inspection, along with assessment of basic ROM and strength. The patient must be positioned and exposed adequately to promote visualization of the entire shoulder and scapular girdle, from both anterior and posterior. Visual inspection focuses on identifying any areas of asymmetry, such as position of the bony prominences or bulk of the muscular fossae. Asymmetry of the bony architecture may indicate prior trauma, and atrophy of the muscular fossae may indicate nerve compression. For example, atrophy of the infraspinatus fossa may be caused by compression of the suprascapular nerve at the spinoglenoid notch (likely by a cyst, often associated with labral pathology, but infraspinatus atrophy can result even without the presence of a compressive cyst¹). Alternatively, atrophy of both the supraspinatus and infraspinatus fossae may indicate underlying compression of the suprascapular nerve at the suprascapular notch (either by a cyst or by the transverse scapular ligament). Static and dynamic observation of the posterior aspect of the shoulder may help identify gross pathology with scapular positioning or retraction, indicating underlying dyskinesis (discussed later). Deformity of the acromioclavicular joint may indicate prior trauma or separation. Last, all prior surgical scars should be noted.

Selective palpation may help identify pathology in the shoulder of the throwing athlete. Tenderness at the acromioclavicular joint may be especially common in patients who have had prior sprains of this joint or who have degenerative changes. Tenderness along the biceps tendon may be present in those with biceps tendinitis or partial tear. In addition, tenderness at the coracoid may be present in those with scapular dyskinesis. Posteriorly, palpation at the inferomedial aspect of the scapula (Figure 1), as with palpation along the medial border of the scapula, may elicit tenderness in those with scapulothoracic bursitis.

Strength testing in the shoulder is performed to elicit any deficiencies of the rotator cuff/musculature or surrounding structures. Weakness in forward elevation may indicate pathology in the supraspinatus, whereas weakness in external rotation may reflect deficiency in the infraspinatus or teres minor. Teres minor deficiency may be more isolated with weakness in a position of shoulder abduction to 90°. Last, weakness in internal rotation may indicate subscapularis deficiency. Lag signs and other provocative maneuvers are similarly elicited but typically are positive only in the event of large tears of the rotator cuff. These signs and maneuvers include the internal rotation lag sign or belly press test for subscapularis integrity, the drop-arm sign for supraspinatus function, the external rotation lag sign for infraspinatus function, and the hornblower sign for teres minor integrity. Supporting muscles of the shoulder may also be tested. Latissimus strength may be tested with resisted downward rotation of the arm with the shoulder in abduction and the elbow flexed to 90°.

2. ROM and GIRD assessment

After inspection and palpation, the shoulder should be ranged in all relevant planes of motion. Our standard examination includes forward elevation in the frontal and scapular planes, along with external rotation at the side and at 90° of abduction, as well as internal rotation behind the back with documentation of the highest spinal level that the patient can reach. This examination may be performed with the patient upright, but supine positioning can help stabilize the scapula and provide more accurate views of motion. Deficits of internal rotation may be a common finding in overhead athletes, and the degree of this deficit should be quantitatively noted.

Bony and soft-tissue remodeling of the shoulder (and associated structures) in the overhead athlete can lead to contracture of the posterior capsule. This contracture can cause excessive external rotation and subsequent decrease in internal rotation, leading to pain and anterior instability in the throwing shoulder.² For precise measurements of the internal and external rotation arc, the scapula must be stabilized. This can be done with the patient supine on the examining table or seated upright with manual stabilization of the scapula by the examiner. Once the scapula is stabilized, the arc of internal and external rotation (with the arm in about 90° of abduction) can be measured with a goniometer, with maximum values obtained as the scapula begins to move along the posterior chest wall.² The difference in internal rotation between the dominant and nondominant arms defines the extent of the athlete’s GIRD. Internal rotation can also be qualitatively assessed by having the athlete internally rotate each arm and reach up the spine while the examiner notes the difference in level achieved. However, this does not provide a quantitative assessment of the patient’s GIRD.

In general, the sum of the internal and external rotation arcs on the 2 sides should be symmetric. Consequently, in GIRD, excessive external rotation is balanced by decreased internal rotation. Symptomatic GIRD may be present when there is more than 25° of discrepancy in internal rotation between the athlete’s dominant and nondominant arms.² The goal is to reduce this discrepancy to less than 20°.

3. Internal impingement: rotator cuff and labrum

In overhead athletes, an intricate relationship involving rotator cuff, labrum, and biceps tendon allows for efficient, pain-free force delivery at the shoulder. However, because of the significant external rotation and abduction required in the overhead motion, there may be internal impingement of the posterosuperior rotator cuff (infraspinatus and posterior aspect of supraspinatus) between the posterior labrum and the greater tuberosity. Detailed examination of these structures must be performed in any assessment of an overhead athlete. Symptomatic patients may complain of pain during the throwing cycle, particularly in late cocking and early acceleration.

The modified relocation examination is a common maneuver to detect internal impingement.³ In this examination, the patient’s arm is brought into a position of maximal external rotation and abduction mimicking that found in late cocking or early acceleration. In this position, a patient with internal impingement complains of pain in the posterior shoulder. A posteriorly directed force on the humerus relieves this pain.

There are also many examinations for detecting labral pathology, specifically a SLAP (superior labrum, anterior to posterior) lesion, which is commonly found in patients with internal impingement. One commonly tested maneuver is the O’Brien active compression test (Figures 2A, 2B), which has excellent sensitivity and specificity in detecting type II SLAP lesions.⁴ In this examination, the patient holds the arm in about 15° of adduction and 90° of forward elevation. A downward force is applied with the forearm pronated and subsequently supinated. If pain is noted on the force applied to the pronated arm, and if this pain decreases in the supinated examination, the test is positive for labral pathology.

Anterior instability is routinely found in these patients. Translation is measured with the anterior load and shift test. Anterior translation is tested with the patient supine, with the arm in abduction and external rotation, and with the examiner placing an anteriorly directed force on the humeral head. Translation is compared with the contralateral side and graded on a 3-point scale (1+ is translation to glenoid rim, 2+ is translation over glenoid rim but reduces, 3+ is translation over glenoid and locking). We also use the anterior release test, in which the patient is supine, the arm is brought into abduction and external rotation, and the examiner places a posteriorly directed force on the humeral head. When the examiner removes this force, the patient notices symptoms of instability caused by subluxation (Figures 3A, 3B).

Biceps tendon testing should also be performed to help elicit signs of labral pathology. The Speed test is performed by placing a downward force on the patient’s arm, which is held in 90° forward elevation, and with elbows in extension and forearm in supination. Pain in the long head of the biceps tendon is considered a positive sign and suggestive of SLAP lesion. Although not commonly found in these athletes, external impingement should also be elicited through both the Neer test and the Hawkins test. In the Neer test, the patient’s arm is brought to maximal forward elevation with the forearm supinated and elbow extended, while the scapula is stabilized by the examiner. Pain in the shoulder indicates a positive examination. In the Hawkins test, the patient’s arm is brought into a position of forward elevation, internal rotation, and elbow flexion. The arm is then further internally rotated, and shoulder pain defines a positive examination.

Any of these findings can be concomitant with scapular dyskinesis. Moreover, symptoms related to internal impingement may be exacerbated by concomitant scapular pathology, and therefore proper assessment of scapulothoracic motion must also be performed.

4. Scapulothoracic examination

Motion coupled between the scapula and the rest of the arm (scapular rhythm) allows for efficient use of the shoulder girdle. The scapula helps transfer the force generated by the core so that the hand can efficiently deliver it. Therefore, scapular pathology (or dyskinesis) results in inefficient functioning of the arm, which can be especially debilitating in an overhead athlete.

Scapular assessment begins with visual inspection of the patient, typically from the posterior view, which allows for assessment of the resting position of the scapula. Evidence of prominence of the medial or inferomedial border, coracoid malposition (or pain on palpation), or general scapular malposition should be noted. On active ROM, as the patient forward-elevates the arm, any asymmetric prominence of the inferomedial border of the scapula should be noted. Such asymmetry may indicate underlying scapular dyskinesis. In another important test, the lateral scapular slide test (described by Kibler⁵), the distance from the inferomedial angle of the scapula to the thoracic spine should be measured for both sides and in 3 difference positions, noting any asymmetry between the affected and nonaffected sides. These 3 positions (Figures 4A–4C) are with arms at side, with hands on hips (internal rotation of humerus in 45° abduction), and in 90° of shoulder abduction. Last, medial and lateral scapular winging—caused by long thoracic nerve and spinal accessory nerve pathology, respectively—can be detected by asking the patient to do a “push-up” against the wall while the examiner views from posterior.

After assessment of scapular position at rest and through motion, a series of provocative maneuvers⁶ may aid in the diagnosis of scapular dyskinesis. The first maneuver is the scapular assistance test, in which the examiner provides a gentle force at the inferomedial angle of the scapula, promoting upward rotation and posterior tilt as the patient elevates the arm (Figures 5A, 5B). If the patient experiences a decrease or absence of symptoms through this arc, the test is considered positive. The second maneuver is the scapular retraction test, in which strength testing of the supraspinatus is performed before and after retraction stabilization of the scapula. In the baseline state, the strength of the supraspinatus is tested in standard fashion, with resisted elevation of the internally rotated and abducted arm. The strength is then tested with the scapula stabilized in retraction (the examiner medially stabilizes the scapula). With scapular stabilization, an increase in strength or a decrease in symptoms is considered a positive test.

5. Neurovascular examination

It is essential to perform a comprehensive neurovascular examination in all overhead athletes. This includes basic cervical spine testing for any motor or sensory deficits, along with assessment of scapular winging to detect long thoracic or spinal accessory nerve palsy for medial and lateral winging, respectively. Although neurovascular injury may be a rare finding in the overhead athlete, a detailed examination must still be performed to rule it out.

Thoracic outlet syndrome

Thoracic syndrome is a compressive neuropathy of nerves and vasculature exiting the thorax and entering the upper extremity. Common symptoms include pain and tingling (sometimes vague) in the neck and upper extremity. These symptoms may be positional as well.

Diagnosis of thoracic outlet syndrome begins with visual inspection of the involved upper extremity, noting atrophy or asymmetry. Weakness may also be present. Additional provocative maneuvers can be used to detect decrease or loss of pulses, along with reproduction of symptoms, during a provocative maneuver with subsequent return of pulses and resolution of symptoms after the maneuver is completed.

One examination that can be used to detect thoracic outlet syndrome is the Adson test.⁷ During this maneuver, the radial pulse is palpated with the arm at rest on the patient’s side. The patient then turns to the symptomatic side, hyperextends the arm, and holds inspiration. A positive test coincides with both decreased pulse and reproduction of symptoms, indicating compression within the scalene triangle. In the Wright test,⁷ the pulse is again palpated at rest with the arm at the side. The patient then holds inspiration and places the arm in a position of abduction and external rotation. If the pulses decrease with this maneuver, the test is considered positive, indicating compression in the sub–pectoralis minor region deep to the coracoid. In a third test, the costoclavicular test, again pulses are measured before and during the provocative maneuver, which is with the shoulders thrust backward and depressed downward. A positive test indicates compression between the clavicle and the first rib. In our practice, we use a modified Wright test in which the arm is held in abduction and external rotation while radial pulses are palpated. The fist is then opened and clenched rapidly, and diminution of radial pulses is considered a positive examination (Figures 6A, 6B).

Effort thrombosis

Overhead athletes are at increased risk for developing effort thrombosis⁸ (Paget-Schroetter syndrome). This thrombosis, which results from repetitive motion involving the upper extremity, is not limited to overhead sports; it may be caused by underlying compression of or microtrauma to the venous infrastructure. On physical examination, there may be swelling of the affected limb, along with diffuse pain and fatigue, as well as dermatologic changes. Positive findings warrant further testing, such as coagulation profile testing and advanced imaging or venography.

Arterial aneurysm

Although rare, arterial aneurysms, especially of the axillary artery, must be ruled out in the overhead athlete with vague upper extremity pain (especially distally) and without clear diagnosis.⁹ Aneurysm of the axillary artery can result from repetitive microtrauma related to repetitive overhead motion of the upper extremity. This condition may cause showering of emboli distally to the vasculature of the hand and fingers (Figure 7). Patients may complain of pain in the fingers, difficulty with grip, cyanosis, or cold sensation. On examination, the sufficiency of the radial and ulnar arteries should be assessed, as with detailed sensorimotor examination of the fingers. The fingernails should be examined for splinter hemorrhages.

Conclusion

Overhead athletes place extreme stress on the shoulder during the throwing motion and are at high risk for injury because of repetitive stress on the shoulder girdle. When examining overhead athletes with shoulder pain, surgeons must consider the entire kinetic chain, as inefficiencies anywhere along the chain can lead to altered mechanics and pathology in the shoulder.

The overhead athlete’s shoulder is exposed to extremes of stress and range of motion (ROM), predisposing this joint to unique injury patterns. Prompt diagnosis and management begin with a comprehensive history and a physical examination, supplemented by imaging studies as needed. Furthermore, the throwing shoulder undergoes adaptive changes, such as partial undersurface rotator cuff tears and capsular laxity. Imaging studies typically demonstrate abnormalities in asymptomatic throwers. Therefore, clinicians must be skilled in history taking and physical examination in throwing athletes to accurately determine the cause of symptoms and provide optimal treatment. This primer provides orthopedic surgeons with the key points in performing a thorough physical examination of the shoulder in overhead athletes.

When working with overhead athletes, surgeons must elicit the precise nature of symptoms. For example, it is important to distinguish pain from fatigue, as well as complaints related purely to decline in performance. Often, collaboration with the player’s parent or coach may help clarify the chief complaint. In addition, surgeons must have an intricate knowledge of the various stages of the overhead motion, as symptoms in specific stages (late cocking/early acceleration) may raise suspicion for distinctive pathology (labral/biceps complex). Last, it is imperative to understand that the shoulder represents only one part of the kinetic chain in overhead athletes. Successful throwing relies on integrity of the entire kinetic chain, starting with the lower extremity and trunk, extending through the spine, scapula, and shoulder, and terminating with the hand and fingers. Pathology anywhere in the chain must be evaluated and addressed.

When examining the shoulder in overhead athletes, surgeons must address several anatomical structures, both bony and soft tissue. Proper examination begins with comprehensive assessment of the ROM and strength of the various muscles around the shoulder, along with visual inspection to identify any asymmetry of these structures. In addition, the scapulothoracic structures must be examined in detail to rule out underlying dyskinesis. The capsular and ligamentous components of the shoulder joint must be further assessed to note any capsular contracture causing glenohumeral internal rotation deficit (GIRD) or any pathology with the rotator cuff or labral/biceps complex. Last, a comprehensive neurovascular examination should be performed to rule out any compression or neuropathy affecting the shoulder and overhead motion. Findings from the physical examination may then require further imaging to correlate the history and physical examination findings.

1. Inspection, palpation, strength testing

Every examination of the shoulder must begin with visual inspection, along with assessment of basic ROM and strength. The patient must be positioned and exposed adequately to promote visualization of the entire shoulder and scapular girdle, from both anterior and posterior. Visual inspection focuses on identifying any areas of asymmetry, such as position of the bony prominences or bulk of the muscular fossae. Asymmetry of the bony architecture may indicate prior trauma, and atrophy of the muscular fossae may indicate nerve compression. For example, atrophy of the infraspinatus fossa may be caused by compression of the suprascapular nerve at the spinoglenoid notch (likely by a cyst, often associated with labral pathology, but infraspinatus atrophy can result even without the presence of a compressive cyst¹). Alternatively, atrophy of both the supraspinatus and infraspinatus fossae may indicate underlying compression of the suprascapular nerve at the suprascapular notch (either by a cyst or by the transverse scapular ligament). Static and dynamic observation of the posterior aspect of the shoulder may help identify gross pathology with scapular positioning or retraction, indicating underlying dyskinesis (discussed later). Deformity of the acromioclavicular joint may indicate prior trauma or separation. Last, all prior surgical scars should be noted.

Selective palpation may help identify pathology in the shoulder of the throwing athlete. Tenderness at the acromioclavicular joint may be especially common in patients who have had prior sprains of this joint or who have degenerative changes. Tenderness along the biceps tendon may be present in those with biceps tendinitis or partial tear. In addition, tenderness at the coracoid may be present in those with scapular dyskinesis. Posteriorly, palpation at the inferomedial aspect of the scapula (Figure 1), as with palpation along the medial border of the scapula, may elicit tenderness in those with scapulothoracic bursitis.

Strength testing in the shoulder is performed to elicit any deficiencies of the rotator cuff/musculature or surrounding structures. Weakness in forward elevation may indicate pathology in the supraspinatus, whereas weakness in external rotation may reflect deficiency in the infraspinatus or teres minor. Teres minor deficiency may be more isolated with weakness in a position of shoulder abduction to 90°. Last, weakness in internal rotation may indicate subscapularis deficiency. Lag signs and other provocative maneuvers are similarly elicited but typically are positive only in the event of large tears of the rotator cuff. These signs and maneuvers include the internal rotation lag sign or belly press test for subscapularis integrity, the drop-arm sign for supraspinatus function, the external rotation lag sign for infraspinatus function, and the hornblower sign for teres minor integrity. Supporting muscles of the shoulder may also be tested. Latissimus strength may be tested with resisted downward rotation of the arm with the shoulder in abduction and the elbow flexed to 90°.

2. ROM and GIRD assessment

After inspection and palpation, the shoulder should be ranged in all relevant planes of motion. Our standard examination includes forward elevation in the frontal and scapular planes, along with external rotation at the side and at 90° of abduction, as well as internal rotation behind the back with documentation of the highest spinal level that the patient can reach. This examination may be performed with the patient upright, but supine positioning can help stabilize the scapula and provide more accurate views of motion. Deficits of internal rotation may be a common finding in overhead athletes, and the degree of this deficit should be quantitatively noted.

Bony and soft-tissue remodeling of the shoulder (and associated structures) in the overhead athlete can lead to contracture of the posterior capsule. This contracture can cause excessive external rotation and subsequent decrease in internal rotation, leading to pain and anterior instability in the throwing shoulder.² For precise measurements of the internal and external rotation arc, the scapula must be stabilized. This can be done with the patient supine on the examining table or seated upright with manual stabilization of the scapula by the examiner. Once the scapula is stabilized, the arc of internal and external rotation (with the arm in about 90° of abduction) can be measured with a goniometer, with maximum values obtained as the scapula begins to move along the posterior chest wall.² The difference in internal rotation between the dominant and nondominant arms defines the extent of the athlete’s GIRD. Internal rotation can also be qualitatively assessed by having the athlete internally rotate each arm and reach up the spine while the examiner notes the difference in level achieved. However, this does not provide a quantitative assessment of the patient’s GIRD.

In general, the sum of the internal and external rotation arcs on the 2 sides should be symmetric. Consequently, in GIRD, excessive external rotation is balanced by decreased internal rotation. Symptomatic GIRD may be present when there is more than 25° of discrepancy in internal rotation between the athlete’s dominant and nondominant arms.² The goal is to reduce this discrepancy to less than 20°.

3. Internal impingement: rotator cuff and labrum

In overhead athletes, an intricate relationship involving rotator cuff, labrum, and biceps tendon allows for efficient, pain-free force delivery at the shoulder. However, because of the significant external rotation and abduction required in the overhead motion, there may be internal impingement of the posterosuperior rotator cuff (infraspinatus and posterior aspect of supraspinatus) between the posterior labrum and the greater tuberosity. Detailed examination of these structures must be performed in any assessment of an overhead athlete. Symptomatic patients may complain of pain during the throwing cycle, particularly in late cocking and early acceleration.

The modified relocation examination is a common maneuver to detect internal impingement.³ In this examination, the patient’s arm is brought into a position of maximal external rotation and abduction mimicking that found in late cocking or early acceleration. In this position, a patient with internal impingement complains of pain in the posterior shoulder. A posteriorly directed force on the humerus relieves this pain.

There are also many examinations for detecting labral pathology, specifically a SLAP (superior labrum, anterior to posterior) lesion, which is commonly found in patients with internal impingement. One commonly tested maneuver is the O’Brien active compression test (Figures 2A, 2B), which has excellent sensitivity and specificity in detecting type II SLAP lesions.⁴ In this examination, the patient holds the arm in about 15° of adduction and 90° of forward elevation. A downward force is applied with the forearm pronated and subsequently supinated. If pain is noted on the force applied to the pronated arm, and if this pain decreases in the supinated examination, the test is positive for labral pathology.

Anterior instability is routinely found in these patients. Translation is measured with the anterior load and shift test. Anterior translation is tested with the patient supine, with the arm in abduction and external rotation, and with the examiner placing an anteriorly directed force on the humeral head. Translation is compared with the contralateral side and graded on a 3-point scale (1+ is translation to glenoid rim, 2+ is translation over glenoid rim but reduces, 3+ is translation over glenoid and locking). We also use the anterior release test, in which the patient is supine, the arm is brought into abduction and external rotation, and the examiner places a posteriorly directed force on the humeral head. When the examiner removes this force, the patient notices symptoms of instability caused by subluxation (Figures 3A, 3B).

Biceps tendon testing should also be performed to help elicit signs of labral pathology. The Speed test is performed by placing a downward force on the patient’s arm, which is held in 90° forward elevation, and with elbows in extension and forearm in supination. Pain in the long head of the biceps tendon is considered a positive sign and suggestive of SLAP lesion. Although not commonly found in these athletes, external impingement should also be elicited through both the Neer test and the Hawkins test. In the Neer test, the patient’s arm is brought to maximal forward elevation with the forearm supinated and elbow extended, while the scapula is stabilized by the examiner. Pain in the shoulder indicates a positive examination. In the Hawkins test, the patient’s arm is brought into a position of forward elevation, internal rotation, and elbow flexion. The arm is then further internally rotated, and shoulder pain defines a positive examination.

Any of these findings can be concomitant with scapular dyskinesis. Moreover, symptoms related to internal impingement may be exacerbated by concomitant scapular pathology, and therefore proper assessment of scapulothoracic motion must also be performed.

4. Scapulothoracic examination

Motion coupled between the scapula and the rest of the arm (scapular rhythm) allows for efficient use of the shoulder girdle. The scapula helps transfer the force generated by the core so that the hand can efficiently deliver it. Therefore, scapular pathology (or dyskinesis) results in inefficient functioning of the arm, which can be especially debilitating in an overhead athlete.

Scapular assessment begins with visual inspection of the patient, typically from the posterior view, which allows for assessment of the resting position of the scapula. Evidence of prominence of the medial or inferomedial border, coracoid malposition (or pain on palpation), or general scapular malposition should be noted. On active ROM, as the patient forward-elevates the arm, any asymmetric prominence of the inferomedial border of the scapula should be noted. Such asymmetry may indicate underlying scapular dyskinesis. In another important test, the lateral scapular slide test (described by Kibler⁵), the distance from the inferomedial angle of the scapula to the thoracic spine should be measured for both sides and in 3 difference positions, noting any asymmetry between the affected and nonaffected sides. These 3 positions (Figures 4A–4C) are with arms at side, with hands on hips (internal rotation of humerus in 45° abduction), and in 90° of shoulder abduction. Last, medial and lateral scapular winging—caused by long thoracic nerve and spinal accessory nerve pathology, respectively—can be detected by asking the patient to do a “push-up” against the wall while the examiner views from posterior.

After assessment of scapular position at rest and through motion, a series of provocative maneuvers⁶ may aid in the diagnosis of scapular dyskinesis. The first maneuver is the scapular assistance test, in which the examiner provides a gentle force at the inferomedial angle of the scapula, promoting upward rotation and posterior tilt as the patient elevates the arm (Figures 5A, 5B). If the patient experiences a decrease or absence of symptoms through this arc, the test is considered positive. The second maneuver is the scapular retraction test, in which strength testing of the supraspinatus is performed before and after retraction stabilization of the scapula. In the baseline state, the strength of the supraspinatus is tested in standard fashion, with resisted elevation of the internally rotated and abducted arm. The strength is then tested with the scapula stabilized in retraction (the examiner medially stabilizes the scapula). With scapular stabilization, an increase in strength or a decrease in symptoms is considered a positive test.

5. Neurovascular examination

It is essential to perform a comprehensive neurovascular examination in all overhead athletes. This includes basic cervical spine testing for any motor or sensory deficits, along with assessment of scapular winging to detect long thoracic or spinal accessory nerve palsy for medial and lateral winging, respectively. Although neurovascular injury may be a rare finding in the overhead athlete, a detailed examination must still be performed to rule it out.

Thoracic outlet syndrome

Thoracic syndrome is a compressive neuropathy of nerves and vasculature exiting the thorax and entering the upper extremity. Common symptoms include pain and tingling (sometimes vague) in the neck and upper extremity. These symptoms may be positional as well.

Diagnosis of thoracic outlet syndrome begins with visual inspection of the involved upper extremity, noting atrophy or asymmetry. Weakness may also be present. Additional provocative maneuvers can be used to detect decrease or loss of pulses, along with reproduction of symptoms, during a provocative maneuver with subsequent return of pulses and resolution of symptoms after the maneuver is completed.

One examination that can be used to detect thoracic outlet syndrome is the Adson test.⁷ During this maneuver, the radial pulse is palpated with the arm at rest on the patient’s side. The patient then turns to the symptomatic side, hyperextends the arm, and holds inspiration. A positive test coincides with both decreased pulse and reproduction of symptoms, indicating compression within the scalene triangle. In the Wright test,⁷ the pulse is again palpated at rest with the arm at the side. The patient then holds inspiration and places the arm in a position of abduction and external rotation. If the pulses decrease with this maneuver, the test is considered positive, indicating compression in the sub–pectoralis minor region deep to the coracoid. In a third test, the costoclavicular test, again pulses are measured before and during the provocative maneuver, which is with the shoulders thrust backward and depressed downward. A positive test indicates compression between the clavicle and the first rib. In our practice, we use a modified Wright test in which the arm is held in abduction and external rotation while radial pulses are palpated. The fist is then opened and clenched rapidly, and diminution of radial pulses is considered a positive examination (Figures 6A, 6B).

Effort thrombosis

Overhead athletes are at increased risk for developing effort thrombosis⁸ (Paget-Schroetter syndrome). This thrombosis, which results from repetitive motion involving the upper extremity, is not limited to overhead sports; it may be caused by underlying compression of or microtrauma to the venous infrastructure. On physical examination, there may be swelling of the affected limb, along with diffuse pain and fatigue, as well as dermatologic changes. Positive findings warrant further testing, such as coagulation profile testing and advanced imaging or venography.

Arterial aneurysm

Although rare, arterial aneurysms, especially of the axillary artery, must be ruled out in the overhead athlete with vague upper extremity pain (especially distally) and without clear diagnosis.⁹ Aneurysm of the axillary artery can result from repetitive microtrauma related to repetitive overhead motion of the upper extremity. This condition may cause showering of emboli distally to the vasculature of the hand and fingers (Figure 7). Patients may complain of pain in the fingers, difficulty with grip, cyanosis, or cold sensation. On examination, the sufficiency of the radial and ulnar arteries should be assessed, as with detailed sensorimotor examination of the fingers. The fingernails should be examined for splinter hemorrhages.

Conclusion

Overhead athletes place extreme stress on the shoulder during the throwing motion and are at high risk for injury because of repetitive stress on the shoulder girdle. When examining overhead athletes with shoulder pain, surgeons must consider the entire kinetic chain, as inefficiencies anywhere along the chain can lead to altered mechanics and pathology in the shoulder.

The overhead athlete’s shoulder is exposed to extremes of stress and range of motion (ROM), predisposing this joint to unique injury patterns. Prompt diagnosis and management begin with a comprehensive history and a physical examination, supplemented by imaging studies as needed. Furthermore, the throwing shoulder undergoes adaptive changes, such as partial undersurface rotator cuff tears and capsular laxity. Imaging studies typically demonstrate abnormalities in asymptomatic throwers. Therefore, clinicians must be skilled in history taking and physical examination in throwing athletes to accurately determine the cause of symptoms and provide optimal treatment. This primer provides orthopedic surgeons with the key points in performing a thorough physical examination of the shoulder in overhead athletes.

When working with overhead athletes, surgeons must elicit the precise nature of symptoms. For example, it is important to distinguish pain from fatigue, as well as complaints related purely to decline in performance. Often, collaboration with the player’s parent or coach may help clarify the chief complaint. In addition, surgeons must have an intricate knowledge of the various stages of the overhead motion, as symptoms in specific stages (late cocking/early acceleration) may raise suspicion for distinctive pathology (labral/biceps complex). Last, it is imperative to understand that the shoulder represents only one part of the kinetic chain in overhead athletes. Successful throwing relies on integrity of the entire kinetic chain, starting with the lower extremity and trunk, extending through the spine, scapula, and shoulder, and terminating with the hand and fingers. Pathology anywhere in the chain must be evaluated and addressed.

When examining the shoulder in overhead athletes, surgeons must address several anatomical structures, both bony and soft tissue. Proper examination begins with comprehensive assessment of the ROM and strength of the various muscles around the shoulder, along with visual inspection to identify any asymmetry of these structures. In addition, the scapulothoracic structures must be examined in detail to rule out underlying dyskinesis. The capsular and ligamentous components of the shoulder joint must be further assessed to note any capsular contracture causing glenohumeral internal rotation deficit (GIRD) or any pathology with the rotator cuff or labral/biceps complex. Last, a comprehensive neurovascular examination should be performed to rule out any compression or neuropathy affecting the shoulder and overhead motion. Findings from the physical examination may then require further imaging to correlate the history and physical examination findings.

1. Inspection, palpation, strength testing

Every examination of the shoulder must begin with visual inspection, along with assessment of basic ROM and strength. The patient must be positioned and exposed adequately to promote visualization of the entire shoulder and scapular girdle, from both anterior and posterior. Visual inspection focuses on identifying any areas of asymmetry, such as position of the bony prominences or bulk of the muscular fossae. Asymmetry of the bony architecture may indicate prior trauma, and atrophy of the muscular fossae may indicate nerve compression. For example, atrophy of the infraspinatus fossa may be caused by compression of the suprascapular nerve at the spinoglenoid notch (likely by a cyst, often associated with labral pathology, but infraspinatus atrophy can result even without the presence of a compressive cyst¹). Alternatively, atrophy of both the supraspinatus and infraspinatus fossae may indicate underlying compression of the suprascapular nerve at the suprascapular notch (either by a cyst or by the transverse scapular ligament). Static and dynamic observation of the posterior aspect of the shoulder may help identify gross pathology with scapular positioning or retraction, indicating underlying dyskinesis (discussed later). Deformity of the acromioclavicular joint may indicate prior trauma or separation. Last, all prior surgical scars should be noted.

Selective palpation may help identify pathology in the shoulder of the throwing athlete. Tenderness at the acromioclavicular joint may be especially common in patients who have had prior sprains of this joint or who have degenerative changes. Tenderness along the biceps tendon may be present in those with biceps tendinitis or partial tear. In addition, tenderness at the coracoid may be present in those with scapular dyskinesis. Posteriorly, palpation at the inferomedial aspect of the scapula (Figure 1), as with palpation along the medial border of the scapula, may elicit tenderness in those with scapulothoracic bursitis.

Strength testing in the shoulder is performed to elicit any deficiencies of the rotator cuff/musculature or surrounding structures. Weakness in forward elevation may indicate pathology in the supraspinatus, whereas weakness in external rotation may reflect deficiency in the infraspinatus or teres minor. Teres minor deficiency may be more isolated with weakness in a position of shoulder abduction to 90°. Last, weakness in internal rotation may indicate subscapularis deficiency. Lag signs and other provocative maneuvers are similarly elicited but typically are positive only in the event of large tears of the rotator cuff. These signs and maneuvers include the internal rotation lag sign or belly press test for subscapularis integrity, the drop-arm sign for supraspinatus function, the external rotation lag sign for infraspinatus function, and the hornblower sign for teres minor integrity. Supporting muscles of the shoulder may also be tested. Latissimus strength may be tested with resisted downward rotation of the arm with the shoulder in abduction and the elbow flexed to 90°.

2. ROM and GIRD assessment

After inspection and palpation, the shoulder should be ranged in all relevant planes of motion. Our standard examination includes forward elevation in the frontal and scapular planes, along with external rotation at the side and at 90° of abduction, as well as internal rotation behind the back with documentation of the highest spinal level that the patient can reach. This examination may be performed with the patient upright, but supine positioning can help stabilize the scapula and provide more accurate views of motion. Deficits of internal rotation may be a common finding in overhead athletes, and the degree of this deficit should be quantitatively noted.

Bony and soft-tissue remodeling of the shoulder (and associated structures) in the overhead athlete can lead to contracture of the posterior capsule. This contracture can cause excessive external rotation and subsequent decrease in internal rotation, leading to pain and anterior instability in the throwing shoulder.² For precise measurements of the internal and external rotation arc, the scapula must be stabilized. This can be done with the patient supine on the examining table or seated upright with manual stabilization of the scapula by the examiner. Once the scapula is stabilized, the arc of internal and external rotation (with the arm in about 90° of abduction) can be measured with a goniometer, with maximum values obtained as the scapula begins to move along the posterior chest wall.² The difference in internal rotation between the dominant and nondominant arms defines the extent of the athlete’s GIRD. Internal rotation can also be qualitatively assessed by having the athlete internally rotate each arm and reach up the spine while the examiner notes the difference in level achieved. However, this does not provide a quantitative assessment of the patient’s GIRD.

In general, the sum of the internal and external rotation arcs on the 2 sides should be symmetric. Consequently, in GIRD, excessive external rotation is balanced by decreased internal rotation. Symptomatic GIRD may be present when there is more than 25° of discrepancy in internal rotation between the athlete’s dominant and nondominant arms.² The goal is to reduce this discrepancy to less than 20°.

3. Internal impingement: rotator cuff and labrum

In overhead athletes, an intricate relationship involving rotator cuff, labrum, and biceps tendon allows for efficient, pain-free force delivery at the shoulder. However, because of the significant external rotation and abduction required in the overhead motion, there may be internal impingement of the posterosuperior rotator cuff (infraspinatus and posterior aspect of supraspinatus) between the posterior labrum and the greater tuberosity. Detailed examination of these structures must be performed in any assessment of an overhead athlete. Symptomatic patients may complain of pain during the throwing cycle, particularly in late cocking and early acceleration.

The modified relocation examination is a common maneuver to detect internal impingement.³ In this examination, the patient’s arm is brought into a position of maximal external rotation and abduction mimicking that found in late cocking or early acceleration. In this position, a patient with internal impingement complains of pain in the posterior shoulder. A posteriorly directed force on the humerus relieves this pain.

There are also many examinations for detecting labral pathology, specifically a SLAP (superior labrum, anterior to posterior) lesion, which is commonly found in patients with internal impingement. One commonly tested maneuver is the O’Brien active compression test (Figures 2A, 2B), which has excellent sensitivity and specificity in detecting type II SLAP lesions.⁴ In this examination, the patient holds the arm in about 15° of adduction and 90° of forward elevation. A downward force is applied with the forearm pronated and subsequently supinated. If pain is noted on the force applied to the pronated arm, and if this pain decreases in the supinated examination, the test is positive for labral pathology.

Anterior instability is routinely found in these patients. Translation is measured with the anterior load and shift test. Anterior translation is tested with the patient supine, with the arm in abduction and external rotation, and with the examiner placing an anteriorly directed force on the humeral head. Translation is compared with the contralateral side and graded on a 3-point scale (1+ is translation to glenoid rim, 2+ is translation over glenoid rim but reduces, 3+ is translation over glenoid and locking). We also use the anterior release test, in which the patient is supine, the arm is brought into abduction and external rotation, and the examiner places a posteriorly directed force on the humeral head. When the examiner removes this force, the patient notices symptoms of instability caused by subluxation (Figures 3A, 3B).

Biceps tendon testing should also be performed to help elicit signs of labral pathology. The Speed test is performed by placing a downward force on the patient’s arm, which is held in 90° forward elevation, and with elbows in extension and forearm in supination. Pain in the long head of the biceps tendon is considered a positive sign and suggestive of SLAP lesion. Although not commonly found in these athletes, external impingement should also be elicited through both the Neer test and the Hawkins test. In the Neer test, the patient’s arm is brought to maximal forward elevation with the forearm supinated and elbow extended, while the scapula is stabilized by the examiner. Pain in the shoulder indicates a positive examination. In the Hawkins test, the patient’s arm is brought into a position of forward elevation, internal rotation, and elbow flexion. The arm is then further internally rotated, and shoulder pain defines a positive examination.

Any of these findings can be concomitant with scapular dyskinesis. Moreover, symptoms related to internal impingement may be exacerbated by concomitant scapular pathology, and therefore proper assessment of scapulothoracic motion must also be performed.

4. Scapulothoracic examination

Motion coupled between the scapula and the rest of the arm (scapular rhythm) allows for efficient use of the shoulder girdle. The scapula helps transfer the force generated by the core so that the hand can efficiently deliver it. Therefore, scapular pathology (or dyskinesis) results in inefficient functioning of the arm, which can be especially debilitating in an overhead athlete.

Scapular assessment begins with visual inspection of the patient, typically from the posterior view, which allows for assessment of the resting position of the scapula. Evidence of prominence of the medial or inferomedial border, coracoid malposition (or pain on palpation), or general scapular malposition should be noted. On active ROM, as the patient forward-elevates the arm, any asymmetric prominence of the inferomedial border of the scapula should be noted. Such asymmetry may indicate underlying scapular dyskinesis. In another important test, the lateral scapular slide test (described by Kibler⁵), the distance from the inferomedial angle of the scapula to the thoracic spine should be measured for both sides and in 3 difference positions, noting any asymmetry between the affected and nonaffected sides. These 3 positions (Figures 4A–4C) are with arms at side, with hands on hips (internal rotation of humerus in 45° abduction), and in 90° of shoulder abduction. Last, medial and lateral scapular winging—caused by long thoracic nerve and spinal accessory nerve pathology, respectively—can be detected by asking the patient to do a “push-up” against the wall while the examiner views from posterior.

After assessment of scapular position at rest and through motion, a series of provocative maneuvers⁶ may aid in the diagnosis of scapular dyskinesis. The first maneuver is the scapular assistance test, in which the examiner provides a gentle force at the inferomedial angle of the scapula, promoting upward rotation and posterior tilt as the patient elevates the arm (Figures 5A, 5B). If the patient experiences a decrease or absence of symptoms through this arc, the test is considered positive. The second maneuver is the scapular retraction test, in which strength testing of the supraspinatus is performed before and after retraction stabilization of the scapula. In the baseline state, the strength of the supraspinatus is tested in standard fashion, with resisted elevation of the internally rotated and abducted arm. The strength is then tested with the scapula stabilized in retraction (the examiner medially stabilizes the scapula). With scapular stabilization, an increase in strength or a decrease in symptoms is considered a positive test.

5. Neurovascular examination

It is essential to perform a comprehensive neurovascular examination in all overhead athletes. This includes basic cervical spine testing for any motor or sensory deficits, along with assessment of scapular winging to detect long thoracic or spinal accessory nerve palsy for medial and lateral winging, respectively. Although neurovascular injury may be a rare finding in the overhead athlete, a detailed examination must still be performed to rule it out.

Thoracic outlet syndrome

Thoracic syndrome is a compressive neuropathy of nerves and vasculature exiting the thorax and entering the upper extremity. Common symptoms include pain and tingling (sometimes vague) in the neck and upper extremity. These symptoms may be positional as well.

Diagnosis of thoracic outlet syndrome begins with visual inspection of the involved upper extremity, noting atrophy or asymmetry. Weakness may also be present. Additional provocative maneuvers can be used to detect decrease or loss of pulses, along with reproduction of symptoms, during a provocative maneuver with subsequent return of pulses and resolution of symptoms after the maneuver is completed.

One examination that can be used to detect thoracic outlet syndrome is the Adson test.⁷ During this maneuver, the radial pulse is palpated with the arm at rest on the patient’s side. The patient then turns to the symptomatic side, hyperextends the arm, and holds inspiration. A positive test coincides with both decreased pulse and reproduction of symptoms, indicating compression within the scalene triangle. In the Wright test,⁷ the pulse is again palpated at rest with the arm at the side. The patient then holds inspiration and places the arm in a position of abduction and external rotation. If the pulses decrease with this maneuver, the test is considered positive, indicating compression in the sub–pectoralis minor region deep to the coracoid. In a third test, the costoclavicular test, again pulses are measured before and during the provocative maneuver, which is with the shoulders thrust backward and depressed downward. A positive test indicates compression between the clavicle and the first rib. In our practice, we use a modified Wright test in which the arm is held in abduction and external rotation while radial pulses are palpated. The fist is then opened and clenched rapidly, and diminution of radial pulses is considered a positive examination (Figures 6A, 6B).

Effort thrombosis

Overhead athletes are at increased risk for developing effort thrombosis⁸ (Paget-Schroetter syndrome). This thrombosis, which results from repetitive motion involving the upper extremity, is not limited to overhead sports; it may be caused by underlying compression of or microtrauma to the venous infrastructure. On physical examination, there may be swelling of the affected limb, along with diffuse pain and fatigue, as well as dermatologic changes. Positive findings warrant further testing, such as coagulation profile testing and advanced imaging or venography.

Arterial aneurysm

Although rare, arterial aneurysms, especially of the axillary artery, must be ruled out in the overhead athlete with vague upper extremity pain (especially distally) and without clear diagnosis.⁹ Aneurysm of the axillary artery can result from repetitive microtrauma related to repetitive overhead motion of the upper extremity. This condition may cause showering of emboli distally to the vasculature of the hand and fingers (Figure 7). Patients may complain of pain in the fingers, difficulty with grip, cyanosis, or cold sensation. On examination, the sufficiency of the radial and ulnar arteries should be assessed, as with detailed sensorimotor examination of the fingers. The fingernails should be examined for splinter hemorrhages.

Conclusion

Overhead athletes place extreme stress on the shoulder during the throwing motion and are at high risk for injury because of repetitive stress on the shoulder girdle. When examining overhead athletes with shoulder pain, surgeons must consider the entire kinetic chain, as inefficiencies anywhere along the chain can lead to altered mechanics and pathology in the shoulder.