To unlock this feature and to subscribe to our weekly evidence emails, please create a FREE orthoEvidence account.

SIGNUP

Already Have an Account?

Loading...
Visit our Evidence-Based Covid-19 Website and Stay Up to Date with the latest Research.
Ace Report Cover

General anaesthesia versus spinal anaesthesia for fast-track total hip arthroplasty

Download
Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Author Verified
Ace Report Cover
May 2015

General anaesthesia versus spinal anaesthesia for fast-track total hip arthroplasty

Vol: 4| Issue: 5| Number:19| ISSN#: 2564-2537
Study Type:Therapy
OE Level Evidence:2
Journal Level of Evidence:N/A

Total intravenous general anaesthesia vs. spinal anaesthesia for total hip arthroplasty: a randomised, controlled trial.

Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2015 Mar;59(3):298-309.

Contributing Authors:
A Harsten H Kehlet P Ljung S Toksvig-Larsen

Did you know you're eligible to earn 0.5 CME credits for reading this report? Click Here

OE EXCLUSIVE

Dr. Harsten discusses the possible benefits of general anaesthesia in total hip arthroplasty.

Synopsis

118 patients undergoing fast-track total hip arthroplasty (THA) were randomized to receive general anaesthesia (GA), with propofol and remifentanil, or spinal anaesthesia (SA). The purpose of the study was to compare these two anaesthetic approaches in terms of length of hospital stay (LOS), short-term outcomes of well-being, and patient satisfaction at 6 months. Results indicated that general ana...

CME Image

Did you know that you’re eligible to earn 0.5 CME credits for reading this report!

LEARN MORE

Join the Conversation

Please Login or Join to leave comments.

Learn about our AI Driven
High Impact Search Feature

High Impact Icon

The OE High Impact metric uses AI to determine the impact a study will have by considering the content of the article itself. Built using the latest advances of natural language processing techniques. OE High Impact predicts an article’s future number of citations than impact factor alone.

Continue