The effect of spinal anesthesia on blood transfusion rate in total joint arthroplasty.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Total joint arthroplasty (TJA) patients often receive allogeneic blood transfusion. The use of regional anesthesia (RA) is thought to protect against the need for blood transfusion, but many randomized trials of RA in TJA have not reached this conclusion unanimously. We sought to describe the effect of RA on allogeneic transfusion in a large retrospective TJA series. METHODS: We examined data from all TJAs performed in Edmonton, Alberta, in the year 2000 (n = 1875) and used logistic regression modelling to determine the relation between the use of RA and allogeneic transfusion. RESULTS: Twenty-eight percent of TJA subjects received an allogeneic transfusion. Transfusion was independently associated with increasing age, decreasing body mass, decreasing preoperative hemoglobin, female sex, increased comorbidity and prolonged operative time. After controlling for these factors, we found that the use of RA (in the form of spinal anesthesia) compared with general anesthesia reduced the odds ratio (OR) for transfusion to 0.729 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.559-0.949). This represents the combination of a strong relation between RA and transfusion prevention in hip arthroplasty (OR 0.646, 95% CI 0.443-0.944) and a nonsignificant relation in knee arthroplasty (OR 0.825, 95% CI 0.564-1.208). CONCLUSION: The use of spinal anesthesia protects against allogeneic transfusion in arthroplasty of the hip but not the knee. This is consistent with what is known about the hemodynamic consequences of spinal anesthesia.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".