ArticleArthroplasty today2026
Use of an Automated Impactor for Total Hip Arthroplasty Does Not Increase Surgeon Noise Exposure Over Manual Malleting Technique.
Article in Arthroplasty today, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background: Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is associated with high intraoperative noise exposure, raising concerns for occupational hearing risk. Automated impaction systems are increasingly used, but their effect on sound levels compared to traditional manual techniques remains unclear. This study evaluated intraoperative sound exposure during THA using automated vs manual impaction. Methods: In this observational study, intraoperative sound measurements were collected during primary THA via a direct anterior approach at a single institution. A calibrated external microphone positioned near the surgeon's hearing zone recorded sound during a standardized 180-second impaction interval. Primary outcomes included peak sound level (LApeak, dB), average continuous sound level (LAeq, dB), and total sound exposure (dB-seconds). Cases were grouped by impaction method (automated vs manual). Independent Results: Twenty cases were analyzed (10 automated, 10 manual). No significant differences were observed between automated and manual impaction for LApeak (95.22 vs 95.24 dB, Conclusions: Automated impaction did not significantly alter intraoperative sound exposure compared to manual techniques. Noise levels were consistent across procedural variables, suggesting that acoustic burden is inherent to THA. Procedure-level strategies may help mitigate occupational noise exposure.
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.