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 primary aim of this study was to assess the independent association of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on postoperative mortality for patients undergoing orthopaedic and trauma surgery. The secondary aim was to identify factors that were associated with developing COVID-19 during the postoperative period.

Aims

Despite few good-quality studies on the subject, total hip arthroplasty (THA) is increasingly being performed for displaced intracapsular fractures of the neck of femur. We compared outcomes of all patients with displacement of these fractures treated surgically over a ten-year period in one institution.

Aims

Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) remains a serious complication that is associated with high morbidity and costs. The aim of this study was to prepare a systematic review to examine patient-related and perioperative risk factors that can be modified in an attempt to reduce the rate of PJI.

The aim of this study was to compare the operating time, length of stay (LOS), adverse events and rate of re-admission for elderly patients with a fracture of the hip treated using either general or spinal anaesthesia. Patients aged ≥ 70 years who underwent surgery for a fracture of the hip between 2010 and 2012 were identified from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database. Of the 9842 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 7253 (73.7%) were treated with general anaesthesia and 2589 (26.3%) with spinal anaesthesia. On propensity-adjusted multivariate analysis, general anaesthesia was associated with slightly increased operating time (+5 minutes, 95% confidence interval (CI) +4 to +6, p < 0.001) and post-operative time in the operating room (+5 minutes, 95% CI +2 to +8, p < 0.001) compared with spinal anaesthesia. General anaesthesia was associated with a shorter LOS (hazard ratio (HR) 1.28, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.34, p < 0.001). Any adverse event (odds ratio (OR) 1.21, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.32, p < 0.001), thromboembolic events (OR 1.90, 95% CI 1.24 to 2.89, p = 0.003), any minor adverse event (OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.32, p < 0.001), and blood transfusion (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.49, p < 0.001) were associated with general anaesthesia. General anaesthesia was associated with decreased rates of urinary tract infection (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.87, p < 0.001). There was no clear overall advantage of one type of anaesthesia over the other, and surgeons should be aware of the specific risks and benefits associated with each type.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015; 97-B:689–95.

The World Health Organization (WHO) and the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently published guidelines for the prevention of surgical site infection. The WHO guidelines, if implemented worldwide, could have an immense impact on our practices and those of the CDC have implications for healthcare policy in the United States.

Our aim was to review the strategies for prevention of periprosthetic joint infection in light of these and other recent guidelines.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B(4 Supple B):3–10.

We performed a case–control study to compare the rates of further surgery, revision and complications, operating time and survival in patients who were treated with either an uncemented hydroxyapatite-coated Corail bipolar femoral stem or a cemented Exeter stem for a displaced intracapsular fracture of the hip. The mean age of the patients in the uncemented group was 82.5 years (53 to 97) and in the cemented group was 82.7 years (51 to 99) We used propensity score matching, adjusting for age, gender and the presence or absence of dementia and comorbidities, to produce a matched cohort receiving an Exeter stem (n = 69) with which to compare the outcome of patients receiving a Corail stem (n = 69). The Corail had a significantly lower all-cause rate of further surgery (p = 0.016; odds ratio (OR) 0.18, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.84) and number of hips undergoing major further surgery (p = 0.029; OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.09). The mean operating time was significantly less for the Corail group than for the cemented Exeter group (59 min [12 to 136] vs 70 min [40 to 175], p = 0.001). The Corail group also had a lower risk of a peri-prosthetic fracture (p = 0.042; OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.42) . There was no difference in the mortality rate between the groups. There were significantly fewer complications in the uncemented group, suggesting that the use of this stem would result in a decreased rate of morbidity in these frail patients. Whether this relates to an improved functional outcome remains unknown.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:299–305.

The most appropriate protocol for the biopsy of musculoskeletal tumours is controversial, with some authors advocating CT-guided core biopsy. At our hospital the initial biopsies of most musculoskeletal tumours has been by operative core biopsy with evaluation by frozen section which determines whether diagnostic tissue has been obtained and, if possible, gives the definitive diagnosis. In order to determine the accuracy and cost-effectiveness of this protocol we have undertaken a retrospective audit of biopsies of musculoskeletal tumours performed over a period of two years.

A total of 104 patients had biopsies according to this regime. All gave the diagnosis apart from one minor error which did not alter the management of the patient. There was no requirement for re-biopsy. This protocol was more labour-intensive and 38% more costly than CT-guided core biopsy (AU$1804 vs AU$1308). However, the accuracy and avoidance of the anxiety associated with repeat biopsy outweighed these disadvantages.