ReviewJB & JS open access
Noise Levels and Noise-Induced Hearing Loss in the Orthopaedic Operating Room: A Systematic Review.
Review in JB & JS open access. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Orthopaedic personnel are routinely exposed to noise from saws, drills, and hammers that exceeds safety thresholds, placing them at significant risk of noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL). Despite this hazard, preventive measures remain infrequently used. This systematic review evaluates NIHL prevalence, intraoperative noise, and effectiveness of protective measures in operating rooms. Methods: Studies on the prevalence, risk, and prevention of NIHL in orthopaedic personnel published before July 21, 2025 were screened from PubMed/Medline, Ovid Embase, and CENTRAL (Cochrane). Thirty-four studies met the inclusion criteria. Results: NIHL was identified in 17% of participants, and 56 of 75 surgical instruments exceeded the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) A-weighted limits. Noise levels were consistently unsafe during total hip and knee arthroplasty, particularly when robotic-assisted. Custom hearing protection with interchangeable noise reduction filters reduced exposure while maintaining intraoperative communication, whereas surgical hood systems showed minimal benefit, and active noise-cancelling headphones had mixed results. Conclusions: Orthopaedic personnel are frequently exposed to noise levels exceeding safety thresholds, especially during robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty, placing them at risk for NIHL. Evidence supports using custom hearing protection with communication-preserving filters, developing quieter surgical equipment, and implementing routine hearing assessments to improve long-term hearing outcomes. Level of Evidence: II.
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.