We have investigated the outcome of arthroscopic revision surgery for recurrent instability of the shoulder after failed primary anterior stabilisation. We identified 40 patients with failed primary open or arthroscopic anterior stabilisation of the shoulder who had been treated by revision arthroscopic capsulolabral reconstruction and followed up for a mean of 36 months (12 to 87). There were 34 men and six women with a mean age of 33.1 years (15 to 48). Details of the patients, the technique of the primary procedure, the operative findings at revision and the clinical outcome were evaluated by reviewing the medical records, physical examination and the use of the Western Ontario shoulder instability index score, the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score and the health status questionnaire 12. Recurrent instability persisted in four patients after the revision arthroscopic procedure. At the final follow-up, the mean American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score was 81.1 (17.5 to 99.5) and the mean Western Ontario shoulder instability index score was 68.2 (20 to 98.2). Quality-of-life scoring showed good to excellent results in most patients. Arthroscopic revision capsulolabral reconstruction can provide a satisfactory outcome in selected patients for recurrent instability of the shoulder provided that no large Hill-Sachs lesion is present

We developed a questionnaire to assess patient-reported outcome after surgery of the elbow from interviews with patients. Initially, 17 possible items with five response options were included. A prospective study of 104 patients (107 elbow operations) was carried out to analyse the underlying factor structure, dimensionality, internal and test-retest reliability, construct validity and responsiveness of the questionnaire items. This was compared with the Mayo Elbow performance score clinical scale, the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire, and the Short-Form (SF-36) General Health Survey. In total, five questions were considered inappropriate, which resulted in the final 12-item questionnaire, which has been referred to as the Oxford elbow score. This comprises three unidimensional domains, ‘elbow function’, ‘pain’ and ‘social-psychological’; with each domain comprising four items with good measurement properties.

This new 12-item Oxford elbow score is a valid measure of the outcome of surgery of the elbow.

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.