Observational studyAesthetic plastic surgery2026
Safety of Depth-Adjusted Intravenous Anesthesia in Office-Based Aesthetic Surgery: A One-Month Prospective Study of 135 Consecutive Cases.
Observational study 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOffice-based aesthetic surgery frequently relies on intravenous anesthesia to balance intraoperative comfort with rapid recovery. While large series suggest low complication rates, prospective data on patient-reported outcomes under standardized, depth-adjusted protocols remain limited. This study prospectively evaluated safety, satisfaction, recall, and recovery using the specialist-led UMEDA protocol.
methodsIn a single-center, prospective observational study, all consecutive adults undergoing office-based aesthetic procedures between May 1-31, 2025 were analyzed (N = 135). Intravenous anesthesia followed the UMEDA (Ultra-safe Method for Elective Depth-adjusted Anesthesia) protocol; monitoring included automated noninvasive blood pressure, heart rate, and pulse oximetry at 5-min intervals. Anesthesia was predominantly propofol-based (133/135), with midazolam used only in patients with a history of allergy to propofol formulation components (2/135). Primary endpoint was patient satisfaction (5-point Likert). Secondary endpoints were intraoperative recall, recovery time, and major cardiorespiratory events. Two prespecified multivariable logistic regressions examined predictors of (1) high satisfaction (score = 5) and (2) continuous recall.
resultsNo major cardiorespiratory events occurred. Median satisfaction was 5 [IQR 4-5]; 68.1% rated 5. Intraoperative recall was "none" in 38.5%, "induction/emergence only" in 47.4%, and "continuous" in 14.1%. Median recovery time was 22 min [13.0-36.0]. In the satisfaction model, female sex independently predicted high satisfaction (aOR 3.31; 95% CI 1.04-10.50; p = 0.042); age, operative time, recovery time, weight-adjusted propofol dose, multiple procedures, and continuous infusion were not significant (all VIF<5). In the recall model, higher weight-adjusted propofol dose independently reduced the odds of continuous recall (aOR 0.07; 95% CI 0.01-0.67; p = 0.021); sex was not significant (all VIF < 2).
conclusionsIn 135 consecutive office-based cases managed with the UMEDA protocol, depth-adjusted intravenous anesthesia was delivered safely with very high satisfaction, low rates of persistent intraoperative recall, and rapid recovery. These findings support safe and effective implementation of specialist-led, depth-adjusted intravenous anesthesia in ambulatory aesthetic practice and motivate multicenter validation. 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
42203962What 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.