Proximal hamstring tendon avulsion from the ischial tuberosity is a significant injury, with surgical repair shown to have superior functional outcomes compared to non-surgical treatment. However, limited data exists regarding the optimal rehabilitation regime following surgical repair. The aim of this study was to investigate patient outcomes following repair of proximal hamstring tendon avulsions between a conservative (CR) versus an accelerated rehabilitation (AR) regimen.

This prospective randomized controlled trial (RCT) randomised 50 patients undergoing proximal hamstring tendon repair to either a braced, partial weight-bearing rehabilitation regime (CR=25) or an accelerated, unbraced regime, that permitted full weight-bearing as tolerated (AR=25).

Patients were evaluated pre-operatively and at 3 and 6 months post-surgery, via patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) including the Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS), Perth Hamstring Assessment Tool (PHAT) and 12-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12). Primary analysis was per protocol and based on linear mixed models.

Both groups were matched at baseline with respect to patient characteristics. All PROMs improved (p>0.05) and, while the AR group reported a significantly better Physical Component Score for the SF-12 at 3 months (p=0.022), there were no other group differences. Peak isometric hamstrings strength and peak isokinetic quadriceps and hamstrings torque symmetry were all comparable between groups (p>0.05). Three re-injuries have been observed (CR=2, AR=1).

After proximal hamstring repair surgery, post-operative outcomes following an accelerated rehabilitation regimen demonstrate comparable outcomes to a traditionally conservative rehabilitation pathway, albeit demonstrating better early physical health-related quality of life scores, without an increased incidence of early re-injury.

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.