Post Joel M, Switzer Kyle D, Brown David K, Meinzen-Derr Jareen, Dively Jennifer, Dunkin Bradley S, Mehlman Charles T
McLaren Orthopedic Hospital, Lansing, MI, USA.
J Pediatr Orthop. 2013 Jul-Aug;33(5):580-4. doi: 10.1097/BPO.0b013e318288b5e4.
The purpose of our study was to measure the sound level generated by selected commercially available cast saws. These levels were then compared with the level of everyday sounds and to accepted intensities by Safety Administrations to see whether the mandatory use of hearing protection should be recommended to prevent noise-induced hearing loss.
We assessed the sound levels generated by the Quiet Cast Removal System (QCR; OrthoPediatrics Corp., Warsaw, IN), Stryker 986 Cast Vac (Stryker Corp.), and the Stryker 840 Cast Cutter (Stryker Corp.). The sound generated by these saws was measured with a sound level meter at the source and at 6, 12, and 36 inches. The sound level from each device was assessed both while operating alone and while cutting casts for a total of 3 repetitions at each of the distances tested and analyzed statistically.
The maximal mean sound intensity of the Stryker 986 and Stryker 840 saws was 90.7 and 88.6 dBA at 36 inches, respectively while cutting a cast, whereas the QCR System produced 50.1 dBA at this distance. At 6 inches, the mean sound intensity was 99.4, 96.4, and 64.5 dBA for the Stryker 840, 986, and QCR, respectively. Statistically significant differences in sound intensity between Stryker and QCR saws were noted under all testing scenarios (P<0.0001).
None of the cast saws produced intensities exceeding recommended standards for a single exposure or intensities reaching occupational hazard levels. The QCR saw was significantly quieter than both the Stryker 840 and 986 under all scenarios. The need for a recommendation of mandatory usage of hearing protection for patients and office personal could not be demonstrated.
Cast saw noise is common in orthopaedic clinics. Our study demonstrates sound levels from commercially available saws do not reach occupational hazards but are sufficiently high that practical methods to reduce intensity may be warranted.
我们研究的目的是测量选定的市售石膏锯产生的声级。然后将这些声级与日常声音的声级以及安全管理部门认可的强度进行比较，以确定是否应建议强制使用听力保护装置来预防噪声性听力损失。
我们评估了Quiet Cast Removal System（QCR；OrthoPediatrics Corp.，印第安纳州华沙）、史赛克986型石膏吸引器（史赛克公司）和史赛克840型石膏切割器（史赛克公司）产生的声级。这些锯产生的声音在声源处以及距离声源6英寸、12英寸和36英寸处用声级计进行测量。在每个测试距离下，分别对每个设备单独运行时以及切割石膏时产生的声级进行评估，每种情况共重复3次，并进行统计分析。
在切割石膏时，史赛克986型和史赛克840型锯在36英寸处的最大平均声强分别为90.7 dBA和88.6 dBA，而QCR系统在该距离产生的声强为50.1 dBA。在6英寸处，史赛克840型、986型和QCR的平均声强分别为99.4 dBA、96.4 dBA和64.5 dBA。在所有测试场景下，史赛克锯和QCR锯之间的声强存在统计学显著差异（P<0.0001）。
所有石膏锯产生的强度均未超过单次暴露的推荐标准或达到职业危害水平。在所有场景下，QCR锯比史赛克840型和986型锯明显更安静。无法证明有必要建议患者和办公室人员强制使用听力保护装置。
石膏锯噪声在骨科诊所很常见。我们的研究表明，市售锯的声级未达到职业危害水平，但足够高，因此可能需要采取实际方法来降低强度。
