The regional versus general anaesthesia debate is an age-old debate that has brought about few clear answers. Most concur that multiple factors including the patient, the surgery, the method of regional and general anaesthesia, and the quality of perioperative care, all influence surgical outcome. In this age of evidence-based medicine, the heterogenous data available need to be reconciled with the advances in perioperative care and the significant decline in complications associated with the surgical process as a whole. This review considers general issues such as the type of available evidence, and its limitations, particularly with regard to the relatively broad question of neuraxial versus general anaesthesia. It then assesses current evidence on regional versus general anaesthesia for specific scenarios such as hip fracture surgery, carotid endarterectomy, Caesarean section, ambulatory orthopaedic surgery, and postoperative cognitive dysfunction in elderly patients after non-cardiac surgery.