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. A search of PubMed and EMBASE databases was conducted using PRISMA guidelines. The review was registered prospectively in PROSPERO. Studies which assessed the exposure to noise for orthopaedic staff in operating theatres were included. Data about the exposure to noise were extracted from these studies and compared with the A-weighted and C-weighted acceptable levels described in the HSE regulations.Aims
Methods
The follow-up interval of a study represents an important aspect that is frequently mentioned in the title of the manuscript. Authors arbitrarily define whether the follow-up of their study is short-, mid-, or long-term. There is no clear consensus in that regard and definitions show a large range of variation. It was therefore the aim of this study to systematically identify clinical research published in high-impact orthopaedic journals in the last five years and extract follow-up information to deduce corresponding evidence-based definitions of short-, mid-, and long-term follow-up. A systematic literature search was performed to identify papers published in the six highest ranked orthopaedic journals during the years 2015 to 2019. Follow-up intervals were analyzed. Each article was assigned to a corresponding subspecialty field: sports traumatology, knee arthroplasty and reconstruction, hip-preserving surgery, hip arthroplasty, shoulder and elbow arthroplasty, hand and wrist, foot and ankle, paediatric orthopaedics, orthopaedic trauma, spine, and tumour. Mean follow-up data were tabulated for the corresponding subspecialty fields. Comparison between means was conducted using analysis of variance.Aims
Methods
The aim of this study was to assess the quality and scope of the current cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) literature in the field of hand and upper limb orthopaedic surgery. We conducted a systematic review of MEDLINE and the CEA Registry to identify CEAs that were conducted on or after 1 January 1997, that studied a procedure pertaining to the field of hand and upper extremity surgery, that were clinical studies, and that reported outcomes in terms of quality-adjusted life-years. We identified a total of 33 studies that met our inclusion criteria. The quality of these studies was assessed using the Quality of Health Economic Analysis (QHES) scale.Aims
Materials and Methods
The aims of this systematic review were to describe the quantity and methodological quality of meta-analyses in orthopaedic surgery published during the last 17 years. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed, between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2016, were searched for meta-analyses in orthopaedic surgery dealing with at least one surgical intervention. Meta-analyses were included if the interventions involved a human muscle, ligament, bone or joint.Aims
Materials and Methods
