Aims

Highly cross-linked polyethylene (HXLPE) greatly reduces wear in total hip arthroplasty, compared to conventional polyethylene (CPE). Cross-linking is commonly achieved by irradiation. This study aimed to compare the degree of cross-linking and in vitro wear rates across a cohort of retrieved and unused polyethylene cups/liners from various brands.

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.

Aims

As an increasing number of female surgeons are choosing orthopaedics, it is important to recognize the impact of pregnancy within this cohort. The aim of this review was to examine common themes and data surrounding pregnancy, parenthood, and fertility within orthopaedics.

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.

Aims. The use of fluoroscopy in orthopaedic surgery creates risk of radiation exposure to surgeons. Appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) can help mitigate this. The primary aim of this study was to assess if current radiation protection in orthopaedic trauma is safe. The secondary aims were to describe normative data of radiation exposure during common orthopaedic procedures, evaluate ways to improve any deficits in protection, and validate the use of electronic personal dosimeters (EPDs) in assessing radiation dose in orthopaedic surgery. Methods. Radiation exposure to surgeons during common orthopaedic trauma operations was prospectively assessed using EPDs and thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs). Normative data for each operation type were calculated and compared to recommended guidelines. Results. Current PPE appears to mitigate more than 90% of ionizing radiation in orthopaedic fluoroscopic procedures. There is a higher exposure to the inner thigh during seated procedures. EPDs provided results for individual procedures. Conclusion. PPE currently used by surgeons in orthopaedic trauma theatre adequately reduces radiation exposure to below recommended levels. Normative data per trauma case show specific anatomical areas of higher exposure, which may benefit from enhanced radiation protection. EPDs can be used to assess real-time radiation exposure in orthopaedic surgery. There may be a role in future medical wearables for orthopaedic surgeons. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(11):907–912

Advances in orthopaedic surgery have led to minimally invasive techniques to decrease patient morbidity by minimizing surgical exposure, but also limits direct visualization. This has led to the increased use of intraoperative fluoroscopy for fracture management. Unfortunately, these procedures require the operating surgeon to stay in close proximity to the patient, thus being exposed to radiation scatter. The current National Council on Radiation Protection recommends no more than 50 mSv of radiation exposure to avoid ill-effects. Risks associated with radiation exposure include cataracts, skin, breast and thyroid cancer, and leukemia. Despite radiation protection measures, there is overwhelming evidence of radiation-related diseases in orthopaedic surgeons. The risk of developing cancer (e.g. thyroid carcinoma and breast cancer) is approximately eight times higher than in unexposed workers. Despite this knowledge, there is a paucity of evidence on radiation exposure in orthopaedic surgery residents, therefore the goal of this study is to quantify radiation exposure in orthopaedic surgery residents. We hypothesize that orthopaedic surgery residents are exposed to a significant amount of radiation throughout their training. We specifically aim to: 1) quantify the amount of radiation exposure throughout a Canadian orthopaedic residency training program and 2) determine the variability in resident radiation exposure by rotation assignment and year of training. This ongoing prospective cohort study includes all local orthopaedic surgery residents who meet eligibility criteria. Inclusion criteria: 1) adult residents in an orthopaedic surgery residency program. Exclusion criteria: 1) female residents who are pregnant, and 2) residents in a non-surgical year (i.e. leave of absence, research, Masters/PhD). After completion of informed consent, each eligible resident will wear a dosimeter to measure radiation exposure in a standardized fashion. Dosimeters will be worn on standardized lanyards underneath lead protection in their left chest pocket during all surgeries that require radiation protection. Control dosimeters will be worn on the outside of each resident's scrub cap for comparison. Dosimeter readings will then be reported on a monthly and rotational basis. All data will be collected on a pre-developed case report form. All data will be de-identified and stored on a secure electronic database (REDCap). In addition to monthly and rotational dosimeter readings, residents will also report sex, height, level of training, parental status, and age for secondary subgroup analyses. Residents will also report if they have personalized lead or other protective equipment, including lead glasses. Resident compliance with dosimeter use will be measured by self report of >80% use on operative days. Interim analysis will be performed at the 6-month time point and data collection will conclude at the 1 year time point. Data collection began in July 2018 and interim 6-month results will be available for presentation at the CORA annual meeting in June 2019. This is the first prospective study quantifying radiation exposure in Canadian orthopaedic residents and the results will provide valuable information for all Canadian orthopaedic training programs

Objectives

Bone tissue engineering is one of the fastest growing branches in modern bioscience. New methods are being developed to achieve higher grades of mineral deposition by osteogenically inducted mesenchymal stem cells. In addition to well established monolayer cell culture models, 3D cell cultures for stem cell-based osteogenic differentiation have become increasingly attractive to promote in vivo bone formation. One of the main problems of scaffold-based osteogenic cell cultures is the difficulty in quantifying the amount of newly produced extracellular mineral deposition, as a marker for new bone formation, without destroying the scaffold. In recent studies, we were able to show that ^99mTc-methylene diphosphonate (^99mTc-MDP), a gamma radiation-emitting radionuclide, can successfully be applied as a reliable quantitative marker for mineral deposition as this tracer binds with high affinity to newly produced hydroxyapatite (HA).

Aims. We compared the accuracy, operating time and radiation exposure of the introduction of iliosacral screws using O-arm/Stealth Navigation and standard fluoroscopy. Materials and Methods. Iliosacral screws were introduced percutaneously into the first sacral body (S1) of ten human cadavers, four men and six women. The mean age was 77 years (58 to 85). Screws were introduced using a standard technique into the left side of S1 using C-Arm fluoroscopy and then into the right side using O-Arm/Stealth Navigation. The radiation was measured on the surgeon by dosimeters placed under a lead thyroid shield and apron, on a finger, a hat and on the cadavers. Results. There were no neuroforaminal breaches in either group. The set-up time for the O-Arm was significantly longer than for the C-Arm, while total time for placement of the screws was significantly shorter for the O-Arm than for the C-Arm (p = 0.001). The mean absorbed radiation dose during fluoroscopy was 1063 mRad (432.5 mRad to 4150 mRad). No radiation was detected on the surgeon during fluoroscopy, or when he left the room during the use of the O-Arm. The mean radiation detected on the cadavers was significantly higher in the O-Arm group (2710 mRem standard deviation (. sd. ) 1922) than during fluoroscopy (11.9 mRem . sd 14.8). (p < 0.01). Conclusion. O-Arm/Stealth Navigation allows for faster percutaneous placement of iliosacral screws in a radiation-free environment for surgeons, albeit with the same accuracy and significantly more radiation exposure to cadavers, when compared with standard fluoroscopy. Take home message: Placement of iliosacral screws with O-Arm/Stealth Navigation can be performed safely and effectively. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:696–702

The availability and usage of portable image intensifiers has revolutionised routine orthopaedic practice. Many procedures have become simpler, easier, less invasive and less time-consuming. Extensive use of fluoroscopy can, however, result in significant radiation exposure to operating staff. An accumulated dose of 65 (Sv after multiple exposures has been reported to increase the risk of thyroid cancer many years later. Previous studies have shown that it is possible to exceed this dose during various orthopaedic procedures. Though thyroid shields are extensively available most orthopaedic surgeons do not use them. The present study was aimed at measuring the scattered dose to thyroid during DHS/IMHS for neck of femur fractures and IM nailing for long bone fractures and thereby emphasise the need for operating theatre personnel to wear a thyroid shield. A prospective study of 32 consecutive procedures was carried out. The EDD Unfors dosimeter was used to measure the tissue specific exposure dose to thyroid. Measurements were also obtained from the mobile C-arm fluoroscope unit, which calculated the total number of images and the total dose and duration of radiation for each procedure. Other factors including the grade of surgeon, the total number of theatre personnel wearing the lead gown and/or the thyroid shield and the duration of surgery were also recorded. In 32 procedures, the dose of 65 (Sv was exceeded 13 times; 8 times during DHS/IMHS and 5 times during IMN. The average thyroid dose was 142 (Sv during IMN and 55 (Sv during DHS. Only 9 of 223 (4%) theatre personnel were using a thyroid shield in spite of its availability. The results suggest that the thyroid is frequently exposed to potentially harmful radiation during these procedures. Strict inclusion of a thyroid shield as a part of routine radiation protection is recommended

Radiological imaging is necessary in a wide variety of trauma and elective orthopaedic operations. The evolving orthopaedic workforce includes an increasing number of pregnant workers. Current legislation in the United Kingdom, Europe and United States allows them to choose their degree of participation, if any, with fluoroscopic procedures. For those who wish to engage in radiation-prone procedures, specific regulations apply to limit the radiation dose to the pregnant worker and unborn child.

This paper considers those aspects of radiation protection, the potential effects of exposure to radiation in pregnancy and the dose of radiation from common orthopaedic procedures, which are important for safe clinical practice.

Purpose of the study: Recent studies have shown that the incidence of certain cancers would be due to ionising radiation received during diagnostic radiological explorations. It is thus important to optimise dosimetry. In this context, slot scanners have demonstrated potential for generating images with a quality comparable with conventional systems but with a considerable reduction in dose. We wanted to verify this proposition. Material and method: Radiographs were obtained in 50 scoliosis patients (posteroanterior and lateral incidences) using the slot scanner (EOS, Biospace) and with a conventional machine (FCR-7501S, Fuji). A dosimeter was placed on the patient after each exam. Phantoms were used to adjust radiographic parameters for each system in order to obtain comparable quality images. Patient images were then acquired ad the dose calculated at several entry points. These measures were used to compare skin radiation and to initialise a Monte-Carlo simulation calculating the effective dose. Two orthopaedic surgeons and two radiologists then evaluated the visibility of the structures of interest using a standard check list. They read the images in random order and were blinded to all information concerning the patient and the system used to acquire the images. Visibility was noted on a non-parametric scale with 4 levels. Wilcoxon’s test was used to compare the visibility scores. Results: Mean radiation of the skin in the thoracoab-dominal region varied from 0.11 to 0.30 mGy (effective dose 0.057 mSv) for the EOS and 0.73 to 2.47 mGy (effective dose 0.460 mSv) for the FCR-7501S. EOS provided significantly superior visibility for all structures (frontal view, p< 0.006), lateral view p< 0.04) except for the posterior arch of the lumbar vertebrae in the lateral view for which visibility was superior for FCR-7501S (p< 0.003). Discussion: Using the slot scanner, the patients received 6 to 9 times less radiation to the skin for the thoracoab-dominal region and an 8-fold reduction in effective dose than with the conventional system. In addition, the doses presented in the literature for the same exam are much higher than reported for EOS. Conclusion: The EOS slot scanner offers image quality which is globally superior to conventional systems while considerably reducing radiation dose

Purpose: Accurate measurement of dynamic joint motion remains a clinical challenge. To address this problem, we have developed a low-dose clinical procedure using the Roentgen Single-plane Photogrammetric Analysis (RSPA) technique. A validation study was performed in a clinical setting, using a conventional digital flat-panel radiography system. Method: To validate the technique, three experiments were performed: assessment of static accuracy, dynamic repeatability and measurement of effective dose. A knee joint phantom, imbedded with tantalum markers, was utilized for the experiments. Relative spatial positions of the markers were reconstructed using Radiostereometric Analysis (RSA). A digital flat-panel radiography system was used for image acquisition, and the three-dimensional pose of each segment was determined from single-plane projections by applying the RSPA technique. All images were processed using software developed in-house. To assess static accuracy, the phantom was mounted onto a three-axis translational stage and moved through a series of displacements ranging from 0 to 500 μm. Images of the phantom were acquired at each position. Accuracy was calculated by analyzing differences between reconstructed and applied displacements. To assess dynamic repeatability, the phantom was mounted on a six-axis robot, programmed to apply a flexion-extension movement to the joint. Multiple cine acquisitions of the moving phantom were acquired (30 fps, 4 ms exposure). Repeatability was calculated by analyzing the variation between motions reconstructed from repeated acquisitions. The effective dose of the procedure was measured using an ion-chamber dosimeter. The ion chamber was positioned between the phantom and x-ray source, facing the source. Entrance exposure was measured for multiple acquisitions, from which the effective dose was calculated. Results: The accuracy determined from the static assessment was 25 μm and 450μm at the 95% confidence intervals for translations parallel and orthogonal to the image plane, respectively. Repeatability of the motion reconstructed from dynamic acquisitions was better than ± 200 μm for translations and ± 0.1 for rotations. The average effective dose for a 6 second dynamic acquisition was approximately 2μSv. Conclusion: The proposed clinical procedure demonstrates both a high degree of accuracy and repeatability, and delivers a low effective dose

Background: There is increasing concern regarding radiation exposure to surgeons’ using fluoroscopic guidance during orthopaedic procedures. However, there is currently a paucity of information regarding the level of radiation exposure to the foot and ankle surgeon during fluoroscopically assisted foot and ankle surgery. Methods: We conducted a 12 month prospective study to measure radiation dose absorbed by the hands of a dedicated right handed foot and ankle surgeon. A thermo-luminescent dosimeter ring (TLD) was worn on little finger of each hand. Measurement of the cumulative radiation dose was recorded on a monthly basis. Results: A total of 80 foot and ankle cases involving fluoroscopy were performed. The total screening time was 3028seconds (s) (mean screening time 37.4s). Screening time correlated positively with the number of procedures performed (r=0.92, p< 0.001), and with radiation dose in both the left TLD (r=0.85, p=0.0005) and right TLD (r=0.59, p=0.0419). There was no significant difference in radiation dose between either hand (p=0.62). The total radiation dose to the right TLD over the 12 months was 2.4 milli-sieverts. Conclusion: Radiation dose incurred during orthopaedic foot and ankle procedures is proportional to the screening time. Our results show radiation exposure to be well below the annual dose limit set by the International Commission on Radiological Protection. This work demonstrates a simple and convenient method for evaluating a single surgeon’s radiation exposure

Background: There is increased concern regarding radiation exposure to surgeons using fluoroscopic guidance throughout various procedures. However, relatively little information exists on the level of radiation exposure to the foot and ankle surgeon during fluoroscopically assisted foot and ankle surgery. Methods: We are conducting an ongoing proespective study to measure radiation exposure to the hands of a single orthopaedic foot and ankle surgeon (RD). Over a 12-month period, thermoluminescent dosimeter rings are worn on the little finger of each hand of the operating surgeon. The rings are changed at six week intervals. Measurement of the overall radiation exposure is being recorded over this time period. Results: This is an ongoing prospective study started in December 2004. We are measuring: total number foot and ankle cases using fluoroscopy, the total screening time for foot and ankle procedures, the mean screening time per procedure and the total radiation exposure to the thermoluminescent dosimetry rings. Conclusion: Preliminary results show that radiation exposure is well below the current annual dose limit. In our study, radiation exposure during orthopaedic foot and ankle procedures is expected to comply with current recommendations of the European Committee on Radiation Protection and is well below dose limits set by the International Commission on Radiological Protection

Purpose: The use of radiology is integral to Orthopaedic Trauma surgery and there has been increasing dependence on image intensifiers in the operating room. A study was undertaken to assess the radiation exposure of the surgeon. Methods: One full time orthopaedic trauma surgeon has worn a dosimeter on his waist since November 1996, under a lead apron when using a large image intensifier and when using a mini C-arm. Since November 2001, a second dosimeter was worn at the neck, unshielded in all cases. Since June 2005, a ring dosimeter was worn on the dominant ring finger and the all surgical cases were prospectively documented in regard to the type of intensifier used and the amount of fluoroscopy used. Results: In the nine years of monitoring the truncal dosimeter has never recorded any radiation. In four years of monitoring the neck dosimeter has recorded 5.72 mSv (average 1.4 mSv / yr). In last 2 months (6 months data will be available at the time of presentation), 99 operative cases were done. In 31 cases no intra-operative radiology was used, 33 cases used a mini C-arm and in 35 cases a large C-arm was used. A total of 40.2 minutes of mini fluoro time (average 1.22 minutes / case) and 118.09 minutes of full sized C-arm fluoro time (average 3.37 minutes / case) was used. In these 2 months the ring dosimeter recorded 5.4 mSv of radiation (annualized dose 32.4 mSv). Conclusions: The International Commission on Radiological Protection annual recommended dose limits for “radiation workers” are: whole body 20 mSv, eyes 150 mSv and skin / hands 500 mSv. For members of the public these limits are 1 mSv, 15 mSv and 50 mSv, respectively. The exposure of an Orthopaedic Trauma surgeon fall well below the annual recommended dose limits in the industry but begin to approach the limits for the public. From this study it would appear to be safe not to use a lead apron for mini C-arm cases. The surgeons hands are exposed to the most radiation and strategies to reduce this exposure should be pursued

We carried out a prospective study over a period of 12 months to measure the exposure to radiation of the hands of a dedicated foot and ankle surgeon. A thermoluminescent dosimeter ring (TLD) was used to measure the cumulative dose of radiation. Fluoroscopy was used in operations on the foot and ankle. The total screening time was 3028 s, with a mean time per procedure of 37.4 s (0.6 to 197). This correlated positively with the number of procedures performed (r = 0.92, p < 0.001), and with the dose of radiation in both the left (r = 0.85, p = 0.0005) and right TLDs (r = 0.59, p = 0.419). There was no significant difference in the dose of radiation between the two hands (t-test, p = 0.62). The total dose to the right TLD over the 12 months was 2.4 millisieverts. This is a simple and convenient method for evaluating the exposure of a single surgeon to radiation. The radiation detected was well below the annual dose limit set by the International Commission on Radiological Protection

Introduction: The increasing popularity of minimal access surgery in orthopaedic surgery has resulted in increasing use of intra-operative fluoroscopy. The radiation dose received by the surgeon varies from procedure to procedure depending on several factors such as duration of procedure, direct exposure to radiation beam and distance from the radiation source. In particular hand and wrist injuries often involve direct fluoroscopic exposure to the hands of the surgeon and assistant during the procedure. Aim: We undertook a prospective study to directly evaluate the exposure of the surgeon’s and assistant’s hands and thyroid glands during K-wiring procedures of the hand and wrist. In addition we evaluated the efficacy of a lead thyroid shield in limiting the radiation dose to the thyroid gland. In addition we undertook a questionnaire of orthopaedic surgeons and trainees in Ireland to assess the availability of thyroid shields and current practice in wearing them. Method A total of 30 cases were evaluated. Dosimeter film badges (TLD) were obtained from the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland (RPI). Two dosimeters were worn by each of the surgical team: one on the dorsum of the dominant hand and a second worn on the neck during the procedure. The number of fluoroscopic exposures, number of times that hands were caught in the image field, the total dosage of radiation for the procedure and the length of time of exposure were recorded. In 20 cases the surgical team undertook standard precautions of a lead jacket. In a random selection of 10 cases the surgical team also wore a thyroid shield. Results. The mean dose to the surgical teams’ hands was 1.8 cGy (95% CI + 0.6). The mean dose to the thyroid gland was 0.6 cGy in unprotected cases. Notably the dose to the assistants’ hands was higher though this did not reach statistical approval. In cases in which a thyroid shield was worn a significant decrease in dose was noted (p< 0.05). 35% of surgeons had completed a radiation protection course with junior trainees being less likely to have completed such a course. Conclusion: Significant cumulative radiation dose to the hands and thyroid gland occurs following K-wiring of extremities. The dose to the thyroid gland can be effectively decreased by the use of a thyroid collar. Junior trainees whose operative times and hence radiation exposure are higher, have limited radiation protection training. The mandatory use of thyroid shields and early introduction of radiation protection training may help minimise further radiation exposure

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