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

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