Which surgeons and medical teams do NFL franchises commonly use for foot and ankle surgery and what are their published outcomes?
Executive summary
NFL franchises commonly rely on a mix of high-profile academic and private foot-and-ankle specialists — names like Dr. Charles Anderson in Green Bay and Dr. Neal ElAttrache in Los Angeles — and regional centers such as OrthoCarolina and large multispecialty clinics; these clinicians serve as team physicians, consultants, or referral surgeons and have produced the most accessible outcome data in peer-reviewed series and registry analyses [1] [2] [3] [4]. Published outcomes show generally high return-to-play (RTP) rates for many foot and ankle procedures but wide variability by injury type, technique, and study source, and the literature is fragmented across single-team series, specialty cohorts, and the NFL Orthopaedic Surgery Outcomes Database (NO-SOD) [5] [6] [7].
1. Who the teams call: recurring surgeons and clinics
Several surgeons recur in reporting as go-to operators for NFL foot and ankle problems: Dr. Charles Anderson is regularly associated with the Packers’ foot and ankle work, attracting referrals from across the league for turf-toe and complex forefoot reconstructions [1] [4], while Dr. Neal ElAttrache is a prominent Los Angeles–based team physician and sports surgeon frequently named in high-profile cases [2]. Large regional foot-and-ankle centers such as OrthoCarolina’s Foot & Ankle Institute appear repeatedly in the literature as sources of operative series—authors from OrthoCarolina have published outcome series on Jones fractures and other injuries in NFL cohorts [3] [6]. Broader lists of leading North American foot-and-ankle surgeons compiled by specialty outlets also map onto many of these names and institutions, underscoring an informal network of academic leaders and high-volume private-surgery practices that NFL teams or athletic trainers trust [8] [9].
2. Why a short list dominates referrals: reputation, specialty, and networks
The pattern of recurring surgeons is driven by subspecialty reputation, long-standing consultant relationships, and visibility in outcomes research; several team orthopedists serve as consultants to multiple franchises, and successful early results (for example after turf-toe procedures) tend to generate referral cascades across teams [4] [1]. Academic productivity and leadership roles in societies also reinforce referrals: many of the clinicians teams use are past presidents or editorial leaders in foot-and-ankle societies, which both reflects and amplifies influence within professional networks [4] [8].
3. Published outcomes: what the data say about return to play and complications
When surgery is performed, the best-published data come from a mixture of registry analyses and procedure-specific cohorts: the NFL Orthopaedic Surgery Outcomes Database (NO-SOD) demonstrates injury- and procedure-specific RTP patterns across the league—procedures such as ankle ORIF and Achilles repair show declines in games played at one year with recovery over subsequent seasons, while overall RTP rates vary widely by procedure [5]. Procedure-specific literature reports favorable outcomes for certain techniques—e.g., limited-incision PARS repair for midsubstance Achilles ruptures in small NFL series showed no re-ruptures and faster return to baseline activity compared with open repairs in comparative reviews [7]. OrthoCarolina’s series on Jones fractures in NFL players reported high and predictable RTP in that cohort, though recurrence remained a concern [3] [6].
4. The caveats: heterogeneity of studies and gaps in transparency
The public evidence base is fragmented: many outcome papers are single-team or single-surgeon series, specialty-cohort reviews, or retrospective registry studies that draw on differing definitions and data sources (team medical records, NFLISS, or internet reports), which limits cross-study comparability and creates publication bias toward positive surgical series [10] [6]. Even within specialty reviews, management strategies and inter-rater reliability can vary—examples include differing definitions and operative thresholds for Jones fractures and syndesmotic sprains—so “best” outcomes depend on injury classification and surgeon technique [6] [11].
5. Reading the signals: what teams and players should take from the literature
The pragmatic takeaway is that NFL franchises lean on a small set of high-volume, academically active foot-and-ankle surgeons and clinics whose published series show generally strong RTP for many foot and ankle procedures, but outcomes are not uniform across injury types and are constrained by selective reporting and heterogeneous data sources; teams’ choice of surgeon therefore reflects both clinical judgment and institutional relationships, and publicly available outcome metrics—while useful—do not fully capture complications, reoperation rates, or longer-term career impact in a standardized way [5] [10]. Where alternative interpretations exist—such as nonoperative management for some syndesmotic sprains or debate over open versus limited incision Achilles repair—published series reflect those disagreements, underscoring the ongoing need for multicenter, standardized outcome registries in professional sports medicine [11] [7].