header advert
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

Trauma

WHICH TESTS IN CLINICAL EXAMINATION OF THE SHOULDER ARE THE MOST USEFUL? ATTITUDES OF SHOULDER SURGEONS IN THE UK

European Federation of National Associations of Orthopaedics and Traumatology (EFORT) - 12th Congress



Abstract

Introduction

There are over 110 special tests described in the literature for clinical examination of the shoulder, but there is no general consensus as to which of these are the most appropriate to use. Individual opinion appears to dictate clinical practice. Rationalising which tests and clinical signs are the most useful would not only be helpful for trainees, but would also improve day to day practice and promote better communication and understanding between clinicians.

Methodology

We sent a questionnaire survey to all shoulder surgeons in the UK (BESS members), asking which clinical tests each surgeon found most helpful in diagnosing specific shoulder pathologies; namely sub-acromial impingement, biceps tendonitis, rotator cuff tears and instability; both anterior and posterior.

Results

For impingement; Hawkins-Kennedy and Neer's tests were used by the majority of respondents, with 50% also routinely performing Neer's injection test. For frozen shoulder; the shoulder quadrant test was the commonest used, followed by loss of passive range of motion and loss of external rotation. For biceps tendonitis; Speed's and Yergason's tests were by far the commonest used. For rotator cuff tears the commonest signs were; the Napoleon belly press, Hornblower's sign, Gerber's sign, Jobe's sign and Codman's drop arm sign. For instability; the apprehension test, the Gerber-Ganz drawer test, load and shift test and Jobe's relocation test were the commonest used, with the jerk test also popular for posterior instability. We are also currently assessing how individuals actually perform these tests, and whether they are as the original authors described them.

Conclusion

Our results demonstrated some variation in which tests were being used, but with an increased preference for certain tests. Interestingly a large number of respondents commented that the history was of paramount importance and that clinical signs should only substantiate the clinician's diagnosis.