The purpose of this study was to evaluate treatment
results following arthroscopic triangular fibrocartilage complex (TFCC)
debridement for recalcitrant ulnar wrist pain. According to the
treatment algorithm, 66 patients (36 men and 30 women with a mean
age of 38.1 years (15 to 67)) with recalcitrant ulnar wrist pain
were allocated to undergo ulnar shortening osteotomy (USO; n = 24),
arthroscopic TFCC repair (n = 15), arthroscopic TFCC debridement
(n = 14) or prolonged conservative treatment (n = 13). The mean
follow-up was 36.0 months (15 to 54). Significant differences in
Hand20 score at 18 months were evident between the USO group and
TFCC debridement group (p = 0.003), and between the TFCC repair
group and TFCC debridement group (p = 0.029). Within-group comparisons showed
that Hand20 score at five months or later and pain score at two
months or later were significantly decreased in the USO/TFCC repair
groups. In contrast, scores in the TFCC debridement/conservative
groups did not decrease significantly. Grip strength at 18 months
was significantly improved in the USO/TFCC repair groups, but not
in the TFCC debridement/conservative groups. TFCC debridement shows
little benefit on the clinical course of recalcitrant ulnar wrist
pain even after excluding patients with ulnocarpal abutment or TFCC
detachment from the fovea from the indications for arthroscopic
TFCC debridement. Cite this article:
We have developed an illustrated questionnaire, the Hand20, comprising 20 short and easy-to-understand questions to assess disorders of the upper limb. We have examined the usefulness of this questionnaire by comparing reliability, validity, responsiveness and the level of missing data with those of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire. A series of 431 patients with disorders of the upper limb completed the Hand20 and the Japanese version of the DASH (DASH-JSSH) questionnaire. The norms for Hand20 scores were determined in another cross-sectional study. Most patients had no difficulty in completing the Hand20 questionnaire, whereas the DASH-JSSH had a significantly higher rate of missing data. The standard score for the Hand20 was smaller than the reported norms for the DASH. Our study showed that the Hand20 questionnaire provided validation comparable with that of the DASH-JSSH. Explanatory illustrations and short questions which were easy-to-understand led to better rates of response and fewer missing data, even in elderly individuals with cognitive deterioration.
