• B A Basques, D D Bohl, N S Golinvaux, A M Samuel, and J G Grauer.
• Yale School of Medicine, Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, 800 Howard Avenue, New Haven, CT, 06510, USA.
• Bone Joint J. 2015 May 1;97-B(5):689-95.

AbstractThe aim of this study was to compare the operating time, length of stay (LOS), adverse events and rate of re-admission for elderly patients with a fracture of the hip treated using either general or spinal anaesthesia. Patients aged ≥ 70 years who underwent surgery for a fracture of the hip between 2010 and 2012 were identified from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database. Of the 9842 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 7253 (73.7%) were treated with general anaesthesia and 2589 (26.3%) with spinal anaesthesia. On propensity-adjusted multivariate analysis, general anaesthesia was associated with slightly increased operating time (+5 minutes, 95% confidence interval (CI) +4 to +6, p < 0.001) and post-operative time in the operating room (+5 minutes, 95% CI +2 to +8, p < 0.001) compared with spinal anaesthesia. General anaesthesia was associated with a shorter LOS (hazard ratio (HR) 1.28, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.34, p < 0.001). Any adverse event (odds ratio (OR) 1.21, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.32, p < 0.001), thromboembolic events (OR 1.90, 95% CI 1.24 to 2.89, p = 0.003), any minor adverse event (OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.32, p < 0.001), and blood transfusion (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.49, p < 0.001) were associated with general anaesthesia. General anaesthesia was associated with decreased rates of urinary tract infection (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.87, p < 0.001). There was no clear overall advantage of one type of anaesthesia over the other, and surgeons should be aware of the specific risks and benefits associated with each type.©2015 The British Editorial Society of Bone & Joint Surgery.

20 keywords...

hide…