The subject of noise in the operating theatre was recognized as early as 1972 and has been compared to noise levels on a busy highway. While noise-induced hearing loss in orthopaedic surgery specifically has been recognized as early as the 1990s, it remains poorly studied. As a result, there has been renewed focus in this occupational hazard. Noise level is typically measured in decibels (dB), whereas noise adjusted for human perception uses A-weighted sound levels and is expressed in dBA. Mean operating theatre noise levels range between 51 and 75 dBA, with peak levels between 80 and 119 dBA. The greatest sources of noise emanate from powered surgical instruments, which can exceed levels as high as 140 dBA. Newer technology, such as robotic-assisted systems, contribute a potential new source of noise. This article is a narrative review of the deleterious effects of prolonged noise exposure, including noise-induced hearing loss in the operating theatre team and the patient, intraoperative miscommunication, and increased cognitive load and stress, all of which impact the surgical team’s overall performance. Interventions to mitigate the effects of noise exposure include the use of quieter surgical equipment, the implementation of sound-absorbing personal protective equipment, or changes in communication protocols. Future research endeavours should use advanced research methods and embrace technological innovations to proactively mitigate the effects of operating theatre noise. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(10):1039–1043

The October 2024 Research Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Fracture risk among stroke survivors according to post-stroke disability status and stroke type; Noise-induced hearing loss: should surgeons be wearing ear protection during primary total joint replacement?; Intravenous dexamethasone in hip arthroscopy can enhance recovery; Patient-reported outcomes following periprosthetic joint infection of the hip and knee: a longitudinal, prospective observational study; When should surgery take place after weight loss?; Which type of surgery is the hardest physically and mentally?

Industries such as agriculture, construction and military have stringent rules about hearing protection due to the risk of noise induced hearing loss (NIHL). Due to the use of power tools, orthopaedic staff may be at risk of the same condition. The UK Health and Safety Executive (HSE) have clear standards as to what is deemed acceptable occupational noise levels on an A-weighted and C weighted scale. This review is aimed to assess evidence on noise exposure testing within Orthopaedic theatres to see if it exceeds the HSE regulations. A targeted search of online databases PUBMED and EMBASE was conducted using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) principles. This review was registered prospectively in PROSPERO. An eligibility criterion identifying clinical studies which assessed noise exposure for Orthopaedic staff in theatres were included. Noise exposure data was extracted from these studies and a comparison was made with A weighted and C weighted acceptable exposure levels as quoted in the HSE regulations. Fourteen papers were deemed eligible, which reviewed 133 Orthopaedic operations and 64 Orthopaedic instruments. In total, 61% (81 of 132) of Orthopaedic operations and 70% (45 of 64) of instruments exceeded the noise regulations on an A weighted scale. 22% (10 of 46) of operations exceeded the maximum C weighted peak acceptable noise level. Orthopaedic instruments and operations can exceed safe occupational noise levels. NHS Trusts have clear policies about noise exposure in the workplace but have yet to identify Orthopaedic theatres as a potential at risk area. Orthopaedic staff need education, monitoring and protection whereas Employers and Occupational Health should consider assessments to identify at risk staff in Orthopaedic theatres and offer preventative methods from NIHL

Aims. In the UK, the agricultural, military, and construction sectors have stringent rules about the use of hearing protection due to the risk of noise-induced hearing loss. Orthopaedic staff may also be at risk due to the use of power tools. The UK Health and Safety Executive (HSE) have clear standards as to what are deemed acceptable occupational levels of noise on A-weighted and C-weighted scales. The aims of this review were to assess the current evidence on the testing of exposure to noise in orthopaedic operating theatres to see if it exceeds these regulations. Methods. A search of PubMed and EMBASE databases was conducted using PRISMA guidelines. The review was registered prospectively in PROSPERO. Studies which assessed the exposure to noise for orthopaedic staff in operating theatres were included. Data about the exposure to noise were extracted from these studies and compared with the A-weighted and C-weighted acceptable levels described in the HSE regulations. Results. A total of 15 studies were deemed eligible. These included a total of 386 orthopaedic operations and the use of 64 orthopaedic instruments. A total of 294 operations (76%) and 45 instruments (70%) exceeded the regulations on an A-weighted scale, and 22% (10 of 46) of operations exceeded the maximum C-weighted peak acceptable level of noise. Noise-induced hearing loss was reported in 28 of 55 orthopaedic staff members (50.9%). Conclusion. Safe levels of noise can be exceeded in orthopaedic operations, and when using orthopaedic instruments. Employers have clear policies about exposure to noise in the workplace but have yet to identify orthopaedic theatres as a potential at-risk area. Orthopaedic staff need education, monitoring, and protection, while employers should consider regular assessments of staff in orthopaedic theatres and offer methods to prevent noise-induced hearing loss. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(6):602–609

Noise induced hearing loss (NIHL) is a common cause of preventable deafness in adults and exposure to loud noise at work is a significant risk factor for its development. In order to protect the hearing of workers in the U.K., the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), on behalf of the Department for Work and Pensions, established the Control of Noise at Work Regulations (2005). The objectives of this study were to define the levels of noise exposure for the surgeon, assistant, scrub nurse and anaesthetist during total hip and knee arthroplasty surgery. In addition, we sought to determine whether the noise exposure during these procedures reaches or exceeds the action values set out by the U.K. Noise at Work Regulations (2005). To our knowledge no real-time assessment of personal noise exposure has been performed simultaneously on multiple members of the theatre team during arthroplasty surgery. Individual noise exposure during arthroplasty hip and knee surgery was recorded using a personal noise dosemeter system model 22 (DM22) (Pulsar instruments, Filey, U.K.). Recordings were taken real-time during five separate theatre sessions. Each theatre session included two arthroplasty procedures and lasted approximately 4hrs. Personal noise exposure was expressed in terms of peak sound pressure and an average noise exposure over an 8-hour time-period to reflect the noise experienced by the ear over a working day. In all three sessions involving total hip replacement surgery the peak sound pressure, for the operating surgeon, exceeded the exposure action values set out by the U.K. Noise at Work Regulations. Theatre sessions involving total knee replacement surgery did not exceed any exposure action values. The peak sound pressures experienced during total hip replacement surgery are too high and mandate that the surgeon should be provided with appropriate hearing protection. In addition, if the upper exposure action value is routinely exceeded then the theatre should be designated a hearing protection zone

Background. Orthopaedic surgeons are exposed to high levels of noise when performing common surgical procedures. Noise induced hearing loss (NIHL) has been demonstrated amongst senior orthopaedic staff. The objective of this study was to investigate the prevalence of hearing loss amongst arthroplasty surgeons compared to non-surgical clinicians and explore the factors associated with hearing loss. Methods. A cross-sectional prevalence study. Arthroplasty surgeons and non-surgical clinicians were recruited from orthopaedic and medical conferences. All participants were given a paper questionnaire including demographic details, hearing history and Tinnitus and Hearing Survey (THS). All participants were screened for hearing loss in a quiet room using the HearCheck Screener™ (Siemens, UK). Logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with hearing loss. All statistical models were adjusted for age, gender, smoking status and personal noise exposure. A power calculation estimated a sample size of 100 participants. Results. The HEARS study recruited 189 participants (107 arthroplasty surgeons; 82 non-surgical clinicians). Prevalence of hearing loss identified by the HearCheck Screener™; 31% arthroplasty surgeons vs 11% non-surgical clinicians. The odds of failing the HearCheck Screener™ were 3.7 times higher in arthroplasty surgeons compared to their non-surgical colleagues (p<0.004). Similarly, the odds of self-reported hearing loss were 2.79 times higher amongst arthroplasty surgeons (p<0.003). Conclusion. The prevalence of hearing loss amongst arthroplasty surgeons is significantly higher than their non-surgical colleagues. Noise generated during arthroplasty surgery should be recognised and managed to create safer working conditions

Introduction. Orthopaedic theatres can be noisy. Noise exposure is known to be related to reduced cognition, reduced manual dexterity and increased rates of post-operative wound infection. Up to 50% of orthopaedic theatre staff have features of Noise-Induced Hearing Loss (NIHL) with higher levels in consultants compared to registrars. Exposure to noise levels of 90dB(A) at work for a career of 40 years, equates to a 51% risk of hearing loss. Materials & methods. A Casella CEL-242 meter was positioned in the corner of the theatre tent. Recordings were taken for 17 Total Knee Replacements (TKRs) and 11 Total Hip Replacements (THRs). This meter recorded the decibel level once per second (whereas EU Regulation requires equivalent continuous level measurement). Results. Noise levels reached 105.6dB(A) using a hammer during a TKR and 97.9dB(A) with an oscillating saw. Decibel levels exceeded 90dB(A) in every operation within the sample. Percentages of readings at 80.0dB(A) or above, per case, were calculated to estimate the proportion of our data above the EU regulation Lower Action Level; the maximum was 12.6% and they appeared to be greater in TKRs. Discussion. The small percentage of values at 80.0dB(A) or above indicates that the equivalent continuous decibel level for an average 8 hour day would be below the EU Lower Action Level. It was expected that TKRs would have higher percentages of decibels at 80.0dB(A) or above, given the greater time spent sawing in this procedure. Exposure to levels above 90dB (which occurred in every case) for short time periods is proven to cause irreversible loss of hearing. Minor damage accumulates throughout a career of 40 years, and can result in NIHL. Conclusion. Tools used in orthopaedic theatre produce impulse noises that can cause NIHL. Average daily exposure can be assumed to be acceptable. Further investigation is required

Surgeons working in orthopaedic operating theatres are exposed to significant noise pollution due to the use of powered instruments. This may carry a risk of noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL). This study was designed to quantify the noise exposure experienced by orthopaedic surgeons and establish whether this breaches occupational health guidelines for workplace noise exposure. A sound dosimeter was worn by the operating surgeon during 3 total hip replacements and 2 total knee replacements. A timed record of the procedures was kept concurrently. Noise levels experienced during each part of the procedure were measured and total noise exposures calculated. Quantified noise exposures were compared with occupational health guidelines. Noise exposure in total hip replacement averaged 4.5% (1.52–6.45%) of the allowed daily dose (average duration 77.28 min). Total knee replacement exposure was 5.74% (4.09–7.39%) of allowed exposure (average duration 69.76min). Maximum sound levels approached, but did not exceed recommended limits of 110 dBA (108.3dBA in total hip replacement and 107.6dBA in total knee replacement). Transient peak sound levels exceeded occupational health maximum limits of 140dB on multiple occasions during surgery. Overall total noise dose during orthopaedic surgery was acceptable, however orthopaedic surgeons experience brief periods of noise exposure in excess of legislated guidelines. This constitutes a noise hazard and carries a significant, but unquantified risk for NIHL

In the light of EEC proposals on the avoidance of damage to hearing caused by noise, a study was undertaken to determine the risk posed by powered orthopaedic instruments. The noise levels from a number of air-powered and electric tools were measured and analysed and found to exceed the recommended levels. The predicted daily personal noise exposure was calculated and the potential for hearing damage confirmed. Twenty-seven senior orthopaedic staff were then assessed by audiometry; evidence of noise-induced hearing loss was found in half the subjects. The increasing use of powered instruments in elective orthopaedics and fracture fixation may present a significant cumulative risk to the hearing of orthopaedic surgeons and theatre personnel. The use of ear defenders should be promoted, and manufacturers should be encouraged to develop instruments with lower noise emission levels