Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 416

The DOI matches its OpenAlex record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Cognitive effects after epidural vs general anesthesia in older adults. A randomized trial

Pamela G. Williams-Russo·1995·JAMA

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of epidural vs general anesthesia on the incidence of long-term cognitive dysfunction after total knee replacement surgery in older adults. DESIGN: Randomized controlled clinical trial. SETTING: Orthopedic specialty academic hospital. PATIENTS: A total of 262 patients undergoing elective primary total knee replacement with a median age of 69 years; 70% women. INTERVENTION: Random assignment to either epidural or general anesthesia. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: A thorough neuropsychological assessment was performed preoperatively and repeated at 1 week and 6 months postoperatively. Cognitive outcome was assessed by within-patient change on 10 tests of memory, psychomotor, and language skills. Prospective standardized surveillance for cardiovascular complications was performed to allow simultaneous assessment of anesthetic effects on cognitive and cardiovascular outcomes. RESULTS: The two groups were similar at baseline in terms of age, sex, comorbidity, and cognitive function. There were no significant differences between the epidural and general anesthesia groups in within-subject change from baseline on any of the 10 cognitive test results at either 1 week or 6 months. Overall, 5% of patients showed a long-term clinically significant deterioration in cognitive function. There was no difference between the anesthesia groups in the incidence of major cardiovascular complications (3% overall). CONCLUSIONS: The type of anesthesia, general or epidural, does not affect the magnitude or pattern of postoperative cognitive dysfunction or the incidence of major cardiovascular complications in older adults undergoing elective total knee replacement. This is the largest trial of the effects of general vs regional anesthesia on cerebral function reported to date, with more than 99% power to detect a clinically significant difference on any of the neuropsychological tests.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

OpenAlex · 10.1001/jama.274.1.44

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 416

Metadata

Authors
Williams-Russo, P. G.
Venue
JAMA
Publisher
American Medical Association
Published
1995-07-05
Volume
274
Issue
1
Pages
44-50
ISSN
0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4249731728
Cited by
416
References
1
FWCI
10.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Cognitive effects after epidural vs general anesthesia in older adults. A randomized trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.274.1.44
The paper
Williams-Russo, P. G. (1995). Cognitive effects after epidural vs general anesthesia in older adults. A randomized trial. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.274.1.44

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.