The effect of anesthetic technique on mortality and major morbidity after hip fracture surgery: a retrospective, propensity-score matched-pairs cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Spinal anesthesia (SA) has physiological benefits over general anesthesia (GA), but there is insufficient evidence regarding a mortality benefit. We performed a retrospective propensity score-matched cohort study to evaluate the impact of anesthetic technique on mortality and major morbidity in patients undergoing hip fracture surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Clinical, laboratory and outcome data were extracted from electronic databases for patients who underwent hip fracture surgery over a 13-year period at the University Health Network in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. The anesthetic technique was documented (SA or GA), and the primary outcome was 90-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included mortality at 30 and 60 days, hospital length of stay, pulmonary embolism (PE), major blood loss and major acute cardiac events. A propensity-score matched-pair analysis was performed following a non-parsimonious logistic regression model. RESULTS: Of the 2591 patients identified, 883 patients in the SA group were matched to patients in the GA group in a 1:1 ratio. There was a weak association between SA and lower 90-day mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.74, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.96, 99% CI 0.48 to 1.00, p=0.037). SA was also associated with a lower incidence of both PE (1.3% vs 0.5%, p<0.001) and major blood loss (7.7% vs 4.8%, p<0.001) and a shorter hospital length of stay by about 2 days (median 11.9 vs 10 days, p=0.024). There was no difference in major cardiac events or mortality at 30 and 60 days. DISCUSSION: This propensity-score matched-pairs cohort study suggests that SA is weakly associated with a lower 90-day mortality following hip fracture surgery. SA was also associated with improved morbidity evidenced by a lower rate of PE and major blood loss and a shorter hospital length of stay. Given the retrospective nature of the study, these results are not proof of causality.
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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".