ArticleOrthopedic reviews2025
Noise Exposure in the Orthopedic Operating Room: A Scoping Review of Instrument-Related Noise Levels.
Article in Orthopedic reviews, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Use of an Automated Impactor for Total Hip Arthroplasty Does Not Increase Surgeon Noise Exposure Over Manual Malleting Technique.Arthroplasty today · 2026Article
- Association between intraoperative noise intensity during hip arthroplasty and the postoperative risk of kinesiophobia: a prospective cohort study.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Noise exposure in orthopedic operating rooms (ORs), particularly from power tools, poses potential risks to surgical staff and patients, including noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL). This scoping review quantifies noise exposure related to orthopedic instrument use and explores recommended guidelines. Methods: Using Covidence, PubMed was systematically searched for studies published between January 1990 and December 2023. Of 1671 initial studies, 13 met inclusion criteria. Data extracted included decibel measurements, instrument types, measurement distances, and noise exposure recommendations. Results: Unweighted decibel measurements for oscillating and reciprocating saws ranged from 81 dB to 131 dB, drilling systems from 78.3 dB to 97 dB, and hammering from 92 dB to 103.4 dB. A-weighted measurements for saws ranged from 53 dB(A) to 100 dB(A), drilling systems from 74.6 dB(A) to 97 dB(A), rasping systems from 87 dB(A) to 110 dB(A), and acetabular reaming at 87 dB(A). Action value set by the UK Control of Noise at Work Regulations, begin at 80 dB(A), requiring information, training, and hearing protection, while the upper exposure action value is 85 dB(A), mandating noise reduction measures and enforce hearing protection use. Of the included studies, 61.5% (8 of 13) provided explicit noise mitigation recommendations, 23.1% (3 of 13) presented mixed recommendations, and 15.4% (2 of 13) found no significant risk. Conclusion: Significant variation exists in reported exposure levels and recommendations, highlighting the need for standardized evaluation methodologies. Future research should focus on standardizing measurement parameters and comprehensively evaluating current instrumentation to develop evidence-based noise mitigation protocols for orthopedic ORs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.