Abstract

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.

Abstract

From two orthopaedic theatres at Pretoria Academic Hospital 28 samples were randomly selected, including Hibiscrub soap dispensers and both fully-sealed and partially-used bottles of iodine/alcohol, Hibitane/alcohol and Hibitane/water. Samples were taken from the solutions and the bottlenecks and basic microbiological cultures were done. Only the Hibitane/water bottles yielded positive cultures, with Bacillus species cultured from three out of four.

We concluded from this small random study that with the exception of Hibitane/water mixtures it should be safe to use the same bottle of solution in different cases.

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.

The light handle can be a major source of contamination in operation theatres where surgeries are prolonged and light handles need to be manipulated multiple times. The light handle by sheer size can obstruct laminar flow and cause eddy currents and can cause bacterial deposition on light handle which in turn can contaminate light handles. A study of light handle contamination was done from November 2010 to December 2010 at Blackpool Victoria hospital from swabs taken from light handles during preoperative, intra operative and post operative period from a single laminar flow operating theatre. A total of 40 cases were selected for study. Most of our cases were primary hip and knee replacement. The swabs were cultured into blood agar /mcconkey medium and incubated for 48 hours at 37 degree Celsius. None of the swabs showed any bacterial contamination which shows light handle is not a source of intraoperative contamination. Our trial gives a point estimate of 0% contamination rate, upper limit of the 95% confidence interval of the probability of contamination as 7.5%. we conclude that light handle is not a source of contamination in operation theatres and hence no need to change gloves every time we manipulate light handle.

Aim: To determine the effects of the different types of headgear on bacterial shedding in laminar flow theatres.

Material and Methods: Sham experiments were carried out using standard theatre clothing, sterile gowns and face masks with visors. Three experimental groups were utilised; no headgear (control), surgeons hoods or fabric balaclavas (known colloquially as “chicken hats”). The sham experiments consisted of two surgeons, scrubbed and gowned, both wearing the same headgear, talking and moving hands for 30 minutes over a sterile mock operating field. 5 bacterial plates were placed on the sterile sheets to capture shed bacteria. An additional 5 plates were placed above head height in the laminar flow enclosure. An air sampler was positioned within the laminar flow and set off for the middle 5 mins of the experiment. Plates were then incubated for 48hrs at 37oC and the number of colony forming units at head and waist height as well as in the air sampler were counted. Each experiment was repeated 5 times.

Results: The bacterial shedding rate at waist height was 0.2 CFUs/plate (314 CFUs/m2/hr) for the control experiment, 0 CFUs/plate (0 CFUs/m2/hr) for the surgeons hoods and 0.08 CFUs/plate (126 CFUs/m2/hr) for the fabric balaclavas.

Conclusion: These experiments show very low bacterial shedding rates with standard clothing and headgear in laminar flow theatres. Although these results demonstrate worse bacterial shedding with fabric balaclavas (which contradicts conventional thinking), the low rate of shedding rates means the results are not statistically significant. It therefore raises the question as to whether we should be using the more expensive fabric balaclavas without proven benefit, and the possibility of increased bacterial shedding.

Optimal utilisation of operating theatres has a significant impact on the ability of an institution to deliver productive, value for money surgical services. With the recent introduction of the national ‘Productive Theatres’ programme and in the current economic climate it is receiving increasing attention. In addition, it improves patient satisfaction and outcomes, reduces adverse events and has positive influences on staff morale. The aim of this study was to highlight factors influencing trauma theatre utilisation in general, whilst also addressing any problems identified with a view to improving trauma services locally. We conducted a prospective analysis of activity in the trauma theatre at our institution over 1 month. Direct observation was performed by a single independent observer. In the absence of any published guidelines, all theatre lists were assessed against pre-determined standards for each component of the theatre pathway. Overall end utilisation (combined time utilised for anaesthesia and surgery) was found to be low at 65%. A number of factors were found to contribute to inefficiencies including delay in sending for patients (mean 42mins, range 0-105), prolonged patient transit times to theatre (mean 22% of all sessions), late starts to lists (mean 43 mins, range 15-105 mins) waiting for x-ray availability (mean 21mins, range 10-45) and knock on delay from previous lists. Surgeons and anaesthetists were found to be, overall, arriving on time or early for all lists. Strategies for maximising trauma theatre productivity are essential. This study has identified common issues, of potential benefit to numerous institutions when planning trauma services

Aims

COVID-19 has changed the practice of orthopaedics across the globe. The medical workforce has dealt with this outbreak with varying strategies and adaptations, which are relevant to its field and to the region. As one of the ‘hotspots’ in the UK , the surgical branch of trauma and orthopaedics need strategies to adapt to the ever-changing landscape of COVID-19.

Aim

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic presents significant challenges to healthcare systems globally. Orthopaedic surgeons are at risk of contracting COVID-19 due to their close contact with patients in both outpatient and theatre environments. The aim of this review was to perform a literature review, including articles of other coronaviruses, to formulate guidelines for orthopaedic healthcare staff.

Aims

Elective surgery has been severely curtailed as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. There is little evidence to guide surgeons in assessing what processes should be put in place to restart elective surgery safely in a time of endemic COVID-19 in the community.