Contents

Internal ImpingementEdit

Internal impingement is a shoulder condition most commonly seen in athletes who perform repetitive overhead motions, such as pitchers, tennis players, and gymnasts. It arises when the posterior-superior aspect of the glenoid and its labrum repeatedly contacts the rotator cuff tendons and the humeral head during late abduction and external rotation. Over time, this contact can cause pain, inflammation, and microtrauma to the joint structures, potentially leading to chronic dysfunction if not addressed. While it is a legitimate and well-recognized problem, there is ongoing debate about the precise causes, the best ways to diagnose it, and when surgery is warranted. The condition is distinct from external or subacromial impingement, and its management emphasizes both hard data and practical considerations for athletes returning to play.

Pathophysiology and anatomy

Internal impingement involves a mechanical conflict inside the shoulder joint as the arm’s position moves into the late cocking phase of throwing or other high-velocity overhead actions. The contact occurs primarily between the posterior-superior portion of the glenoid and the rotator cuff tendons (especially the supraspinatus and infraspinatus) and, in some cases, the posterior labrum. Recurrent contact can produce labral irritation, partial-thickness rotator cuff tears, or microinstability of the joint. A body of work notes that a loss of internal rotation range of motion (GIRD, or glenohumeral internal rotation deficit) and posterior capsule tightness can predispose athletes to this syndrome by altering the normal kinematics of the shoulder during throwing. Some cases involve coexisting pathologies such as SLAP lesions or small labral detachments, which can complicate the clinical picture.

Signs, symptoms, and diagnosis

  • Pain is typically posterior or deep within the shoulder and worsens with throwing, late cocking, or deceleration.
  • Performance may be hindered by pain, reduced velocity, or altered mechanics.
  • Examination may reveal a limited internal rotation range of motion, posterior shoulder tightness, and signs that reproduce pain with positions of abduction and external rotation (often elicited with provocative maneuvers such as the ABER test).
  • Imaging, including MRI or MR arthrography, helps assess rotator cuff integrity, labral health, and any associated capsular or labral pathology; ultrasound may also be used in some cases.

It is important to differentiate internal impingement from other shoulder injuries that can present with similar symptoms, such as external impingement, rotator cuff tears unrelated to throwing, and labral instability. A careful history focusing on the athlete’s sport, throwing volume, and changes in technique or workload is essential for an accurate diagnosis.

Management and rehabilitation

The central approach in most cases is conservative management focused on restoring functional mechanics, reducing pain, and allowing the joint to heal. Core components include:

  • Activity modification and workload management to reduce repetitive high-stress throwing.
  • Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and other evidence-based pain management as appropriate.
  • A structured physical therapy program emphasizing:
    • Scapular stabilization and kinetic-chain strengthening.
    • Posterior capsular and rotator cuff strengthening, with particular attention to the posterior cuff and integrating improvements in posterior shoulder mechanics.
    • Flexibility work aimed at restoring normal internal rotation and reducing GIRD.
    • Gradual return-to-throw protocols that emphasize gradual ramp-up of volume, intensity, and range of motion.
  • Education for athletes, coaches, and families about loading, technique, and recovery to prevent recurrence.

Surgical options are considered when conservative care fails to relieve symptoms after several months or when imaging reveals structural lesions that are unlikely to improve without intervention. Procedures may include arthroscopic debridement of frayed cuff tissue, capsular or posterior release in selected cases, and addressing any labral pathology (such as a SLAP lesion) when clearly indicated. The choice of procedure depends on the patient’s sport, position, degree of pathology, and goals for return to competition. Outcomes vary, but many athletes can return to their sport after appropriate rehabilitation and, if needed, targeted surgery.

Epidemiology and risk factors

Internal impingement most commonly affects overhead athletes who repeatedly stress the shoulder through throwing or serving actions. Risk factors include:

  • High throwing volume, year-round competition, and inadequate rest periods.
  • Altered shoulder mechanics, including posterior capsule tightness and reduced internal rotation (GIRD).
  • A history of prior shoulder injuries that may alter kinematics.
  • Age and activity level, with young athletes in intensive training programs often at higher risk.

Controversies and debates

  • Primary cause vs secondary byproduct: Some clinicians view internal impingement as the result of fundamental biomechanical issues in the throwing motion, while others see it as one manifestation of broader elbow- and shoulder-chain load management. The consensus emphasizes that multiple factors—motion, muscle balance, scapular control, and workload—contribute.
  • Conservative care vs surgery: A core debate centers on how aggressively to pursue surgery. Proponents of rehabilitation argue that most athletes can return to competition with structured physical therapy and workload management, reducing surgical risks and costs. Advocates for earlier surgical intervention point to faster or more reliable restoration of mechanics in select patients with identifiable structural pathology. Decision-making should be individualized, with clear goals and realistic timelines for return to sport.
  • Role of labral pathology: The presence of posterior labral irritation or SLAP-like changes raises questions about whether surgery targeting the labrum improves outcomes for internal impingement. Critics worry about overdiagnosis and overtreatment, while supporters argue that addressing a coexisting labral lesion when clinically indicated can improve function.
  • Cost, access, and care delivery: From a practical standpoint, debates about how to allocate resources in sports medicine—private clinics, team-based care, and public health considerations—shape recommendations for imaging, rehabilitation, and surgery. A focus on evidence-based, cost-effective care is common across viewpoints, but the emphasis on rapid return-to-play can be controversial in some circles.

From a practical perspective, the core of these debates is whether we prioritize maximal protection of long-term joint health and cost-conscious care, or whether rapid structural correction and aggressive intervention are warranted in high-demand athletes. Critics who frame these choices as driven by broader social or political agendas often mischaracterize the science; supporters contend that evidence-based decisions, individualized rehabilitation timelines, and a focus on return-to-sport performance yield the best outcomes for most athletes.

See also