Background: Pectoral nerve blocks have been proposed for analgesia during and after breast cancer surgery, but data are conflicted in aesthetic breast surgery. This trial tested the primary hypothesis that adding a preincisional pectoral nerve block is superior to systemic multimodal analgesic regimen alone for pain control after breast augmentation surgery. A second hypothesis is that rescue opioid consumption would be decreased with a long-lasting effect for both outcomes during the following days. Methods: Seventy-three adult female patients undergoing aesthetic breast augmentation surgery under general anesthesia were randomly allocated to receive a pectoral nerve block versus no block. Both groups received standard care with protocolized multimodal analgesia alone including systematic acetaminophen and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. The primary outcome measure was the maximal numerical rating scale in the first 6 h after extubation. Secondary outcomes included intraoperative remifentanil consumption and from extubation to day 5: maximal numerical rating scale, postoperative cumulative opioid consumption and postoperative opioid side effects, and patient satisfaction recorded at day 5. Results: The maximal numerical rating scale score in the first 6 h was lower in the pectoral nerve block group compared with the control group (3.9 ± 2.5 vs. 5.2 ± 2.2; difference: –1.2 [95% CI, –2.3 to –0.1]; P = 0.036). The pectoral nerve block group had a lower maximal numerical rating scale between days 1 and 5 (2.2 ± 1.9 vs. 3.2 ± 1.7; P = 0.032). The cumulative amount of overall opioids consumption (oral morphine equivalent) was lower for the pectoral nerve block group from hour 6 to day 1 (0.0 [0.0 to 21.0] vs. 21.0 [0.0 to 31.5] mg, P = 0.006) and from days 1 to 5 (0.0 [0.0 to 21.0] vs. 21.0 [0.0 to 51] mg, P = 0.002). Conclusions: Pectoral nerve block in conjunction with multimodal analgesia provides effective perioperative pain relief after aesthetic breast surgery and is associated with reduced opioid consumption over the first 5 postoperative days. Editor’s Perspective: What We Already Know about This Topic: What This Article Tells Us That Is New:

Tracheal intubation is a frequent and high-risk procedure in the intensive care unit (ICU). Unlike elective intubation in the operating room, ICU intubation is often performed under emergent conditions in physiologically unstable patients, leading to increased technical difficulty and higher complication rates. Among these, hypoxemia is particularly frequent and represents a major determinant of morbidity and mortality. Optimizing preoxygenation is therefore a cornerstone of safe airway management in critically ill patients. The aim of this review is to explore the advantages and limitations of each preoxygenation strategy and to provide clinicians with clear, practical guidance to optimize airway management in the ICU. Preoxygenation aims to increase oxygen reserves in order to prolong the duration of safe apnea. Conventional methods include high-flow oxygen delivery through a tightly fitted face mask, though efficacy depends on minimizing leaks. More advanced strategies include non-invasive ventilation (NIV), which improves both alveolar oxygen fraction and lung volume, and high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC), which additionally allows apneic oxygenation during intubation. Randomized controlled trials, including the recent PREOXY study, demonstrate the superiority of NIV over facemask preoxygenation in reducing peri-intubation desaturation, particularly in hypoxemic patients. HFNC is valuable when NIV is contraindicated, while combined approaches (NIV plus HFNC) may further enhance efficacy. Beyond technique, structured protocols and team organization are crucial to reduce complications. In conclusion, preoxygenation is an essential, patient-specific intervention that mitigates the risks of ICU intubation. Familiarity with available methods enables clinicians to tailor strategies, optimize oxygenation, and improve patient safety during this high-risk procedure.