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. The diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) continues to present a significant clinical challenge. New biomarkers have been proposed to support clinical decision-making; among them, synovial fluid alpha-defensin has gained interest. Current research methodology suggests reference methods are needed to establish solid evidence for use of the test. This prospective study aims to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of high-performance liquid chromatography coupled with the mass spectrometry (LC-MS) method to detect alpha-defensin in synovial fluid. Methods. Between October 2017 and September 2019, we collected synovial fluid samples from patients scheduled to undergo revision surgery for painful total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The International Consensus Meeting criteria were used to classify 33 PJIs and 92 aseptic joints. LC-MS assay was performed to measure alpha-defensin in synovial fluid of all included patients. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were calculated to define the test diagnostic accuracy. Results. The AUC was 0.99 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.98 to 1.00). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis showed that the optimal cut-off value of synovial fluid alpha-defensin was 1.0 μg/l. The sensitivity of alpha-defensin was 100% (95% CI 96 to 100), the specificity was 97% (95% CI 90 to 98), the positive predictive value was 89.2% (95% CI 82 to 94), and negative predictive value was 100% (95% CI 96 to 100). ROC analysis demonstrated an AUC of 0.99 (95% CI 0.98 to 1.0). Conclusion. The present study confirms the utility of alpha-defensin in the synovial fluid in patients with painful TKA to select cases of PJI. Since LC-MS is still a time-consuming technology and is available in highly specialized laboratories, further translational research studies are needed to take this evidence into routine procedures and promote a new diagnostic approach. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(9):1047–1051

Aims

Despite recent advances in arthroscopic rotator cuff repair, re-tear rates remain high. New methods to improve healing rates following rotator cuff repair must be sought. Our primary objective was to determine if adjunctive bone marrow stimulation with channelling five to seven days prior to arthroscopic cuff repair would lead to higher Western Ontario Rotator Cuff (WORC) scores at 24 months postoperatively compared with no channelling.

Aims

The aims of the study were to review and analyse the reported series of debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR) in the management of infected total hip arthroplasties (THAs) to establish the overall success and the influencing factors.

Aims

Our purpose was to determine the quality of current randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in hand surgery using standardised metrics.

Health economic evaluations potentially provide valuable information to clinicians, health care administrators, and policy makers regarding the financial implications of decisions about the care of patients. The highest quality research should be used to inform decisions that have direct impact on the access to care and the outcome of treatment. However, economic analyses are often complex and use research methods which are relatively unfamiliar to clinicians. Furthermore, health economic data have substantial national, regional, and institutional variability, which can limit the external validity of the results of a study. Therefore, minimum guidelines that aim to standardise the quality and transparency of reporting health economic research have been developed, and instruments are available to assist in the assessment of its quality and the interpretation of results.

The purpose of this editorial is to discuss the principal types of health economic studies, to review the most common instruments for judging the quality of these studies and to describe current reporting guidelines. Recommendations for the submission of these types of studies to The Bone & Joint Journal are provided.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:147–51.

The extent and depth of routine health care data are growing at an ever-increasing rate, forming huge repositories of information. These repositories can answer a vast array of questions. However, an understanding of the purpose of the dataset used and the quality of the data collected are paramount to determine the reliability of the result obtained.

This Editorial describes the importance of adherence to sound methodological principles in the reporting and publication of research using ‘big’ data, with a suggested reporting framework for future Bone & Joint Journal submissions.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1575–7.

The Bone & Joint Journal provides the latest evidence to guide the clinical practice of orthopaedic surgeons. The benefits of one intervention compared with another are presented using outcome measures; some may be specific to a limb or joint and some are more general health-related quality of life measures. Readers will be familiar with many of these outcome measures and will be able to judge the relative benefits of different interventions when measured using the same outcome tool; for example, different treatments for pain in the knee measured using a particular knee score. But, how should readers compare outcomes between different clinical areas using different outcome measures? This article explores the use of standardised effect sizes.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:853–4.

The maintenance of quality and integrity in clinical and basic science research depends upon peer review. This process has stood the test of time and has evolved to meet increasing work loads, and ways of detecting fraud in the scientific community. However, in the 21st century, the emphasis on evidence-based medicine and good science has placed pressure on the ways in which the peer review system is used by most journals.

This paper reviews the peer review system and the problems it faces in the digital age, and proposes possible solutions.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:436–41.

A systematic search of the literature published between January 1985 and February 2006 identified 62 studies which reported the results of arthroscopic procedures for chronic anterior shoulder instability or comparisons between arthroscopic and open surgery. These studies were classified by surgical technique and research methodology, and when appropriate, were included in a meta-analysis. The failure rate of arthroscopic shoulder stabilisation using staples or transglenoid suture techniques appeared to be significantly higher than that of either open surgery or arthroscopic stabilisation using suture anchors or bio-absorbable tacks. Arthroscopic anterior stabilisation using the most effective techniques has a similar rate of failure to open stabilisation after two years