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

This study reports the mid-term results of total hip arthroplasty (THA) performed using a monoblock acetabular component with a large-diameter head (LDH) ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC) bearing.

In 1998, lysis / wear were the biggest concerns in THR. 3 distinct tacks emerged: Alternatives to polyethylene: Ceramic / Ceramic; Metal / Metal; Make a better polyethylene. MOM story is well known: bad ending!!. Large adoption of Ceramic / Ceramic: positives: low wear, benign MR findings, even low dislocation rates !! negatives: fractures still occurred, noise generation, liner malseating, metal transfer (edge effects). Crosslinked Polyethylene: Update: 13–15 year follow-up of 1st generation XLPE with remelted product: Annual wear rates of 0.004 (metal heads) 0.002 (ceramic heads)!. No lysis!! Wear rates for “standard” heads and large heads both low approaching the lower limits of detection!!. CONCLUSION: Crosslinked Polyethylene with Ceramic Heads: The Winner and Still Champion!

Aims

We evaluated the short-term functional outcome and prevalence of bearing-specific generation of audible noise in 301 patients (336 hips) operated on with fourth generation (Delta) medium diameter head, ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC) total hip arthroplasties (THAs).

The following papers will be discussed during this session: 1) Staph Screening and Treatment Prior to Elective TJA; 2) Unfulfilled Expectations Following TJA Procedures; 3) Thigh Pain in Short Stem Cementless Components in THR; 4) Is the Direct Anterior Approach a Risk Factor for Early Failure?; 5) THA Infection - Results of a 2nd 2-Stage Re-implantation - Clinical Trial of Articulating and Static Spacers; 6) THA Revision - Modular vs. Non Modular Fluted Tapered Stems-Total Femoral Replacement for Femoral Bone Loss - Cage + TM Augment vs. Cup Cage for Acetabular Bone Loss; 7) Do Injections Increase the Risk of Infection Prior to TKA?; 8) Long-Acting Opioid Use Predicts Perioperative Complication in TJA; 9) UKA vs. HTO in Patients Under 55 at 5–7 years; 10) Stemming Tibial Component in TKA Patients with a BMI > 30; 11) The Effect of Bariatric Surgery Prior to Total Knee Arthroplasty; 12) Oral Antibiotics and Reinfection Following Two-Stage Exchange; 13) Two-Stage Debridement with Prosthetic Retention for Acute TKA Infections; 14) Patient-Reported Outcomes Predict Meaningful Improvement after TKA; 15) Contemporary Rotating Hinge TKA; 16) Liposomal Bupivacaine in TKA; and 17) Noise Generation in Modern TKA: Incidence and Significance

The June 2014 Hip & Pelvis Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Modular femoral necks: early signs are not good; is corrosion to blame for modular neck failures; metal-on-metal is not quite a closed book; no excess failures in fixation of displaced femoral neck fractures; noise no problem in hip replacement; heterotopic ossification after hip arthroscopy: are NSAIDs the answer?; thrombotic and bleeding events surprisingly low in total joint replacement; and the elephant in the room: complications and surgical volume.

Noise generation has been reported with ceramic-on-ceramic articulations in total hip replacement (THR). This study evaluated 208 consecutive Delta Motion THRs at a mean follow-up of 21 months (12 to 35). There were 141 women and 67 men with a mean age of 59 years (22 to 84). Patients were reviewed clinically and radiologically, and the incidence of noise was determined using a newly described assessment method. Noise production was examined against range of movement, ligamentous laxity, patient-reported outcome scores, activity level and orientation of the acetabular component. There were 143 silent hips (69%), 22 (11%) with noises other than squeaking, 17 (8%) with unreproducible squeaking and 26 (13%) with reproducible squeaking. Hips with reproducible squeaking had a greater mean range of movement (p < 0.001) and mean ligament laxity (p = 0.004), smaller median head size (p = 0.01) and decreased mean acetabular component inclination (p = 0.02) and anteversion angle (p = 0.02) compared with the other groups. There was no relationship between squeaking and age (p = 0.13), height (p = 0.263), weight (p = 0.333), body mass index (p = 0.643), gender (p = 0.07) or patient outcome score (p = 0.422). There were no revisions during follow-up. Despite the surprisingly high incidence of squeaking, all patients remain satisfied with their hip replacement. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:160–5

This multicentre study analysed 12 alumina ceramic-on-ceramic components retrieved from squeaking total hip replacements after a mean of 23 months in situ (11 to 61). The rates and patterns of wear seen in these squeaking hips were compared with those seen in matched controls using retrieval data from 33 ‘silent’ hip replacements with similar ceramic bearings. All 12 bearings showed evidence characteristic of edge-loading wear. The median rate of volumetric wear was 3.4 mm³/year for the acetabular component, 2.9 mm³/year on the femoral heads and 6.3 mm³/year for head and insert combined. This was up to 45 times greater than that of previously reported silent ceramic-on-ceramic retrievals. The rate of wear seen in ceramic components revised for squeaking hips appears to be much greater than in that seen in retrievals from ‘silent’ hips.

Hard-on-hard bearing surface have been accepted as a valuable alternative for young and active patients needing a hip replacement because these combinations are resistant to wear. Initial development of alumina-on-alumina bearings faced complications such as fractures, and socket loosening. But, with the increasing number of prostheses implanted, noise occurrence appeared as a new complication. The primary aim of the present survey was to quantify the prevalence of having noise in a population receiving alumina-on-alumina hip arthroplasty. Two hundred and eighty-four ceramic-on-ceramic hips were performed in 238 patients (126 males and 112 females) from January 2003 to December 2004. The average age at the index operation was 52.4 ± 13.4 years (range, 13 to 74 years). We used the same type of prosthesis for all patients manufactured in all cases by Ceraver-Osteal. ®. Clearance between femoral and insert was between 20 and 50 microns in order to achieve minimal wear. The survey was conducted by an independent surgeon who did not participated in patients care during the last 6 months of 2007. He interviewed the patients by phone with a standardized questionnaire (appendix) that aimed to assess if noise was present and the characteristics of this noise if present. No suggestion was done on how they could describe the noise and they felt free to use the word that they considered to be the most adapted. Satisfaction was evaluated asking if the patient was very satisfied, satisfied or dissatisfied with its prosthesis. When the noise was present, the X-ray was independently evaluated to assess if sign of component fracture was present. Four patients (six hips) died of unrelated cause during the follow-up. Three patients (three hips) lived outside France and could not be followed (1.3%). Nine patients (ten hips) could not be traced and are considered lost to follow-up (3.8%). Two hundred and twenty-two patients with 265 hips were therefore surveyed. Among these 265 hips, 28 experienced noise generation (10.6%). It was defined as a snap for 6 patients, as a cracking sound by 6, as rustling by 6 patients, as a squeaking by 7 patients (2.6%), a tinkling by 2 patients, one patient was unable to define the sound she felt. No factor related to the patient influenced the occurrence of noise. Twelve patients were dissatisfied with the result of the hip prosthesis, 5 of them experienced noise (41.7%); 210 were satisfied or very satisfied 23 of them experienced noise (11%); this difference was significant (p=0.002). No patients required revision for noise. The origins of noise occurrence are unknown but several hypotheses can be suggested. Squeaking may be due to absence of sufficient lubrication. Other types of noise can be due to microseparation, occult dislocation, impingement between the femoral neck and the acetabular rim but demonstration remain an issue

Squeaking in ceramic total hip joint replacements has become a controversial topic. This study aims to document the incidence of squeaking and other noise generation in a single surgeon series for ceramic on ceramic total hip joint replacements. Possible aetiological for squeaking causes are explored. All patients from public and private who received ceramic on ceramic total hip joint replacements (Stryker trident-accolade) from 2002 to 2007 were identified via the New Zealand Joint registry. Following ethics approval all patients were contacted for a phone interview to question as to whether they had noted any noise generation. Patients who demonstrated noise generation were reviewed in clinic for full history and examination. Data including age, sex, weight, primary diagnosis, head size and cup size were obtained from clinical notes. Post operative x-rays were reviewed to analyse cup abduction and version. Forty one ceramic total hip joint replacements in a total of thirty seven patients were reviewed via telephone interviews. Three patients complained of squeaking in the ceramic bearing while one patient complained of a grinding and one other of clicking. Two of the three who had recognised the squeaking were both able to reproduce the squeaking in the clinic room. The third patient was noted to have crepitus from anterior patello-femoral osteoarthritis. There was no statistical difference in age, weight, primary diagnosis or head size. In terms of abduction and version of the acetabular cups that squeaked, one had twenty seven degrees of ante-version and forty seven degrees of abduction and the other fifteen degrees of anteversion and thirty degrees of anteversion. Four cups lay outside the recommended fifteen-thirty five degrees of anteversion and thirty five-fifty five degrees of abduction yet showed no squeaking. Neither patient is troubled by the squeaking and neither would seek revision surgery. The incidence of squeaking in ceramic on ceramic total hip joint replacements appears to be around five percent with a similar number of patients experiencing other noises. The position of the acetabular cup does not appear to be the sole contributor to the noise and other aetiological causes need to be further investigated