{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0279424216765453, 'fraction_numerical': 0.017781541066892465, 'mean_word_length': 5.677966101694915, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Spinal anesthesia versus general anesthesia for hip fracture repair: a longitudinal observation of 741 elderly patients during 2-year follow-up.

The Baltimore Hip Studies, a multicenter, noninterventional, observational trial, provided an opportunity to investigate the effects of anesthetic technique on the long-term outcome of elderly patients after hip fracture repair. Detailed interviews assessing functional status and pain were conducted during the hospital stay. Out-of-hospital evaluations were repeated after the procedure at 2, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months with a portable gait and balance laboratory. Multivariate analysis was done to determine the effects of anesthetic technique on functional and other outcomes, after controlling for multiple baseline variables. Of 741 enrolled patients who completed the study, 430 and 311 patients received spinal anesthesia or general anesthesia, respectively. Subgroup analysis of three spinal anesthetics, tetracaine, lidocaine, and epinephrine, was also done. In the present large observational study, general anesthesia was at least as efficacious as spinal anesthesia, and possibly better, in affording good long-term outcome.