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

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

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

It was noted that in our spinal theatre a constant cause of delay was lack of an available radiographer. This work describes our solution to this problem by training theatre staff to operate the imaging equipment for the simple single plane images required in spinal surgery. Under the guidance of the trust's Radiation Protection Advisor to a training program for theatre staff was devised that encompassed the practical aspects of using the imaging equipment and the theoretical elements of radiation safety. All changes in practice complied with the radiation safety regulations IRR 99 and IRMER 2000. The trained staff now work as independent operators in the spinal theatre. They work to a ridge protocol and have to report directly to a Radiation Protection Supervisor (senior radiographer) at the end of each list so that the images taken and radiation dosage can be verified. Since the change of practice, the spinal theatre has been more efficient, performing up to one major case extra per list. The radiology department has benefited by having a radiographer freed to perform more complex procedures elsewhere. The operators have also commented on how they have found the whole process rewarding both professionally and personally. The training of theatre staff to operate the imaging equipment in our spinal theatre has been a successful endeavour and at present the trust is currently planning to expand the program to include other surgical fields such as urology and laparoscopic surgery

The International Commission on Radiological Protection has established standards for radiation protection. This study aims to determine actual and perceived radiation dose and audit safe practice when using image-intensifiers in theatre. Between September 2012 and March 2013, 50 surgeons were surveyed during 39 procedures. Information collected by radiographers included the number of images the surgeons thought they used, actual number used, dose, screening time, number of people scrubbed, wearing thyroid collars and standing within 1m of the image-intensifier when in use. The primary surgeon was more likely to estimate the number of images used correctly compared to the assistant. Supervising consultants were most accurate, followed by registrars as primary surgeons, consultants as primary surgeons then assisting registrars, and lastly SHOs. Most surgeons underestimated the number of images used. 87.5% of scrubbed staff were standing within 1m of the image-intensifier during screening and 36.5% were wearing thyroid protection. Three surgeons stated they were not wearing collars as they were unavailable. We conclude that surgeons have a reasonable estimation of the x-rays used but are not undertaking simple steps to protect themselves from radiation. We plan to initiate an education program within the department and have ordered new, lightweight thyroid collars

We have developed a teaching programme for non-radiologists who use fluoroscopy, which includes techniques for reducing the radiation received by the patient and the surgeon during orthopaedic procedures. The techniques resolve around the radiation protection concepts of time, distance and shielding. The programme has been very successful in reducing the total fluoroscopy times of orthopaedic surgeons; in our institute, durations have been reduced to about 10% of those before the training started. We review the aims and content of our programme

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

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

Orthopaedics has been left behind in the worldwide drive towards diversity and inclusion. In the UK, only 7% of orthopaedic consultants are female. There is growing evidence that diversity increases innovation as well as patient outcomes. This paper has reviewed the literature to identify some of the common issues affecting female surgeons in orthopaedics, and ways in which we can address them: there is a wealth of evidence documenting the differences in the journey of men and women towards a consultant role. We also look at lessons learned from research in the business sector and the military. The ‘Hidden Curriculum’ is out of date and needs to enter the 21st century: microaggressions in the workplace must be challenged; we need to consider more flexible training options and support trainees who wish to become pregnant; mentors, both male and female, are imperative to provide support for trainees. The world has changed, and we need to consider how we can improve diversity to stay relevant and effective.

Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2-10:893–899.

Aims

The purpose of this study was to compare clinical results, long-term survival, and complication rates of stemless shoulder prosthesis with stemmed anatomical shoulder prostheses for treatment of osteoarthritis and to analyze radiological bone changes around the implants during follow-up.

Aims

To benchmark the radiation dose to patients during the course of treatment for a spinal deformity.

Aims

The aim of this study was to systematically compare the safety and accuracy of robot-assisted (RA) technique with conventional freehand with/without fluoroscopy-assisted (CT) pedicle screw insertion for spine disease.

Aims

The aim of this study was to quantify the risk of developing cancer from the exposure to radiation associated with surgery to correct limb deformities in children.

We report the kinematic and early clinical results of a patient- and observer-blinded randomised controlled trial in which CT scans were used to compare potential impingement-free range of movement (ROM) and acetabular component cover between patients treated with either the navigated ‘femur-first’ total hip arthroplasty (THA) method (n = 66; male/female 29/37, mean age 62.5 years; 50 to 74) or conventional THA (n = 69; male/female 35/34, mean age 62.9 years; 50 to 75). The Hip Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, the Harris hip score, the Euro-Qol-5D and the Mancuso THA patient expectations score were assessed at six weeks, six months and one year after surgery. A total of 48 of the patients (84%) in the navigated ‘femur-first’ group and 43 (65%) in the conventional group reached all the desirable potential ROM boundaries without prosthetic impingement for activities of daily living (ADL) in flexion, extension, abduction, adduction and rotation (p = 0.016). Acetabular component cover and surface contact with the host bone were > 87% in both groups. There was a significant difference between the navigated and the conventional groups’ Harris hip scores six weeks after surgery (p = 0.010). There were no significant differences with respect to any clinical outcome at six months and one year of follow-up. The navigated ‘femur-first’ technique improves the potential ROM for ADL without prosthetic impingement, although there was no observed clinical difference between the two treatment groups.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015; 97-B:890–8.

After obtaining informed consent, 80 patients were randomised to undergo a navigated or conventional total knee replacement. All received a cemented, unconstrained, cruciate-retaining implant with a rotating platform. Full-length standing and lateral radiographs and CT scans of the hip, knee and ankle joint were carried out five to seven days after operation.

No notable differences were found between computer-assisted navigation and conventional implantation techniques as regards the rotational alignment of the femoral or tibial components. Although the deviation from the transepicondylar axis was relatively low, there was a considerable range of deviation for the tibial rotational alignment. There was no statistically significant difference regarding the occurrence pattern of outliers in mechanical malalignment but the number of outliers was reduced in the navigated group.

In a prospective randomised clinical study acetabular components were implanted either freehand (n = 30) or using CT-based (n = 30) or imageless navigation (n = 30). The position of the component was determined post-operatively on CT scans of the pelvis.

Following conventional freehand placement of the acetabular component, only 14 of the 30 were within the safe zone as defined by Lewinnek et al (40° inclination sd 10°; 15° anteversion sd 10°). After computer-assisted navigation 25 of 30 acetabular components (CT-based) and 28 of 30 components (imageless) were positioned within this limit (overall p < 0.001). No significant differences were observed between CT-based and imageless navigation (p = 0.23); both showed a significant reduction in variation of the position of the acetabular component compared with conventional freehand arthroplasty (p < 0.001). The duration of the operation was increased by eight minutes with imageless and by 17 minutes with CT-based navigation.

Imageless navigation proved as reliable as that using CT in positioning the acetabular component.