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. We compared the accuracy, operating time and radiation exposure of the introduction of iliosacral screws using O-arm/Stealth Navigation and standard fluoroscopy. Materials and Methods. Iliosacral screws were introduced percutaneously into the first sacral body (S1) of ten human cadavers, four men and six women. The mean age was 77 years (58 to 85). Screws were introduced using a standard technique into the left side of S1 using C-Arm fluoroscopy and then into the right side using O-Arm/Stealth Navigation. The radiation was measured on the surgeon by dosimeters placed under a lead thyroid shield and apron, on a finger, a hat and on the cadavers. Results. There were no neuroforaminal breaches in either group. The set-up time for the O-Arm was significantly longer than for the C-Arm, while total time for placement of the screws was significantly shorter for the O-Arm than for the C-Arm (p = 0.001). The mean absorbed radiation dose during fluoroscopy was 1063 mRad (432.5 mRad to 4150 mRad). No radiation was detected on the surgeon during fluoroscopy, or when he left the room during the use of the O-Arm. The mean radiation detected on the cadavers was significantly higher in the O-Arm group (2710 mRem standard deviation (. sd. ) 1922) than during fluoroscopy (11.9 mRem . sd 14.8). (p < 0.01). Conclusion. O-Arm/Stealth Navigation allows for faster percutaneous placement of iliosacral screws in a radiation-free environment for surgeons, albeit with the same accuracy and significantly more radiation exposure to cadavers, when compared with standard fluoroscopy. Take home message: Placement of iliosacral screws with O-Arm/Stealth Navigation can be performed safely and effectively. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:696–702

We carried out a prospective study over a period of 12 months to measure the exposure to radiation of the hands of a dedicated foot and ankle surgeon. A thermoluminescent dosimeter ring (TLD) was used to measure the cumulative dose of radiation. Fluoroscopy was used in operations on the foot and ankle. The total screening time was 3028 s, with a mean time per procedure of 37.4 s (0.6 to 197). This correlated positively with the number of procedures performed (r = 0.92, p < 0.001), and with the dose of radiation in both the left (r = 0.85, p = 0.0005) and right TLDs (r = 0.59, p = 0.419). There was no significant difference in the dose of radiation between the two hands (t-test, p = 0.62). The total dose to the right TLD over the 12 months was 2.4 millisieverts. This is a simple and convenient method for evaluating the exposure of a single surgeon to radiation. The radiation detected was well below the annual dose limit set by the International Commission on Radiological Protection

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.

Aims

As an increasing number of female surgeons are choosing orthopaedics, it is important to recognize the impact of pregnancy within this cohort. The aim of this review was to examine common themes and data surrounding pregnancy, parenthood, and fertility within orthopaedics.

We measured the scattered radiation received by theatre staff, using high-sensitivity electronic personal dosimeters, during fixation of extracapsular fractures of the neck of the femur by dynamic hip screw. The dose received was correlated with that received by the patient, and the distance from the source of radiation. A scintillation detector and a water-filled model were used to define a map of the dose rate of scattered radiation in a standard operating theatre during surgery. Beyond two metres from the source of radiation, the scattered dose received was consistently low, while within the operating distance that received by staff was significant for both lateral and posteroanterior (PA) projections. The routine use of lead aprons outside the 2 m zone may be unnecessary. Within that zone it is recommended that lead aprons be worn and that thyroid shields are available for the surgeon and nursing assistants

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.