The long head of the biceps tendon is widely recognized as an important pain generator, especially in anterior shoulder pain and dysfunction with athletes and working individuals. The purpose of this review is to provide a current understanding of the long head of the biceps tendon anatomy and its surrounding structures, function, and relevant clinical information such as evaluation, treatment options, and complications in hopes of helping orthopaedic surgeons counsel their patients. An understanding of the long head of the biceps tendon anatomy and its surrounding structures is helpful to determine normal function as well as pathologic injuries that stem proximally. The biceps-labral complex has been identified and broken down into different regions that can further enhance a physician's knowledge of common anterior shoulder pain etiologies. Although various physical examination maneuvers exist meant to localize the anterior shoulder pain, the lack of specificity requires orthopaedic surgeons to rely on patient history, advanced imaging, and diagnostic injections in order to determine the patient's next steps. Nonsurgical treatment options such as anti-inflammatory medications, physical therapy, and ultrasound-guided corticosteroid injections should be utilized before entertaining surgical treatment options. If surgery is needed, the three options include biceps tenotomy, biceps tenodesis, or superior labrum anterior to posterior repair. Specifically for biceps tenodesis, recent studies have analyzed open vs arthroscopic techniques, the ideal location of tenodesis with intra-articular, suprapectoral, subpectoral, extra-articular top of groove, and extra-articular bottom of groove approaches, and the best method of fixation using interference screws, suture anchors, or cortical buttons. Orthopaedic surgeons should be aware of the complications of each procedure and respond accordingly for each patient. Once treated, patients often have good to excellent clinical outcomes and low rates of complications.

Shoulder complaints are frequently encountered in general practice, but precise diagnosing is challenging. This study investigated agreement of shoulder complaints diagnoses between clinicians in a primary health care setting.

Cross-sectional study.

Four primary health care clinicians used patients' history and functional examination of the shoulder by selective tissue tension techniques (STTs), to diagnose shoulder complaints.

62 patients, aged 18-75 years.

Reliability of diagnoses was assessed by observed intertester agreement and Cohen's kappa. A total of 372 diagnostic pairs were available for intertester comparisons.

Six diagnoses were assigned by all clinicians; supraspinatus-, infraspinatus-, subscapularis-tendinopathies; chronic subacromial bursitis; glenohumeral capsulitis, and acromioclavicular joint lesion. The observed agreement on these diagnoses ranged from 0.84 for glenohumeral capsulitis to 0.97 for acromioclavicular joint lesion. Kappa scores were 0.46 (95% CI 0.33, 0.58) for chronic subacromial bursitis; 0.53 (95% CI 0.34, 0.68), 0.59 (95% CI 0.47, 0.70), and 0.68 (95% CI 0.53, 0.82) for infraspinatus -, supraspinatus -, and subscapularis-tendinopathy, respectively. For glenohumeral capsulitis and acromioclavicular lesion kappa scores were 0.66 (95% CI 0.57, 0.73) and 0.78 (95% CI 0.61, 0.90). Kappa scores were higher for individual diagnoses than for individual tests, except for limitation in passive abduction (0.70, 95% CI 0.62, 0.78) and passive lateral rotation (0.66, 95% CI 0.57, 0.73).

Although experienced clinicians showed substantial intertester agreement, precise diagnoses of shoulder complaints in primary health care remain a challenge. The present results call for further research on refined diagnoses of shoulder complaints. Key points   Based on medical history and a systematic functional examination by selective tissue tension techniques (STTs), we investigated the agreement of shoulder complaints diagnoses across four primary health care clinicians and 62 patients. • Agreements on diagnoses were generally better than the agreement on individual tests. • Good kappa scores were obtained for the diagnoses glenohumeral capsulitis, rotator cuff tendinopathy, and acromioclavicular lesion. • Further research is necessary to investigate the diagnostic validity of functional shoulder examination by the STTs method.

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

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

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

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

Level IV, systematic review of Level III and IV studies with cross-sectional survey.

To explore the ability of a physiotherapist, using a standardised musculoskeletal physiotherapy assessment protocol, to accurately identify the structures potentially responsible for shoulder symptoms against a standardised arthroscopic shoulder diagnostic assessment, and to determine the physiotherapists' ability to influence post-test diagnostic accuracy.

Consecutive case-based cohort study.

All participants were selected by two orthopaedic surgeons for arthroscopic investigation during a 6-month period.

Private orthopaedic clinic.

All consenting participants selected for arthroscopic investigation were examined by the physiotherapist prior to arthroscopy. Presence and priority of impairments/diagnoses were recorded on a standardised form. Inter and intra-rater reliability and diagnostic accuracy were tabulated.

Proportional agreement on diagnostic incidence (broad) and priority (strict) using 2×2 contingency tables for sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value and positive and negative likelihood ratios were calculated. Post-test probabilities were analysed to determine the influence of a positive or a negative finding.

211 participants, aged 14-79 years were included. Overall prevalence of subacromial pathology was (77%) and, disorders of the passive restraints (29%). For both negative and positive findings, post-test probabilities were not notably altered; although positive findings yielded greater value in the decision-making modelling. The physiotherapist's ability to identify individual pathology (eg, tendon rupture vs tendinopathy, capsular vs labral) was lower than recognition of pathology within the broader diagnostic category.

The physiotherapist's ability to diagnose individual pathologies was inconsistent. Indirectly, this raises the issue of whether signs and symptoms identified under arthroscopic surgery are reflective of a lesion/pathology reflective of a specific tissue.