ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2026
Reply to Trignano et al.: General Anesthesia Plus Sacral Erector Spinae Plane Block-Redefining Safe Anesthesia and Analgesia in Gluteal Augmentation.
Article in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We read with great interest the retrospective study by Trignano et al. on intramuscular gluteal augmentation under tumescent anesthesia and sedoanalgesia. While we commend the authors for performing this procedure outside the traditional setting of general anesthesia, certain anesthesiological concerns must be highlighted. Tumescent anesthesia requires close monitoring due to the risk of local anesthetic systemic toxicity, and deep sedation may mask early neurological warning signs. Furthermore, sedoanalgesia in the prone position raises airway safety concerns, particularly for procedures lasting up to two hours. The use of lidocaine as the primary anesthetic may also predispose patients to inadequate postoperative analgesia and rebound pain. As an alternative, we present our experience with a 23-year-old female undergoing bilateral intramuscular gluteal implant placement under general anesthesia, supplemented with bilateral sacral erector spinae plane block (S-ESPB). The block was performed with a safe dose of bupivacaine and lidocaine solution, and ultrasound guidance confirmed the absence of implant compression on the sacral plexus. Postoperative pain scores remained ≤ 3 for 24 hours with only scheduled oral paracetamol. S-ESPB, first described in 2019, primarily targets posterior lumbosacral branches with potential spread to ventral rami and cluneal nerves. By addressing fascial tension and proprioceptive components of pain, it provides effective analgesia in gluteal implant surgery. We conclude that combining general anesthesia with fascial plane blocks can enhance the safety and quality of recovery in these patients.Level of Evidence IV This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
Indexed as
Identifiers
41286168What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.