Authors' Response to Comments on "Comparison of PECS I Block and Local Anesthetic Infiltration for Pain Management in...

We thank Qayyum et al. for their interest in our study comparing PECS I block and direct local anesthetic infiltration for postoperative pain management in breast augmentation surgery. We would like to clarify that the primary objective of our study was not to determine the most comprehensive regional anesthesia technique, but rather to isolate the analgesic contribution of medial and lateral pectoral nerve blockade and compare it with direct pectoralis major infiltration under standardized conditions. For this reason, PECS I block was deliberately selected over PECS II. We also discuss the methodological considerations underlying our split-body design, including anesthetic dose standardization, patient safety, and minimization of interpatient variability. While we acknowledge the limitations related to fixed side allocation, sample size, and the inability to assess side-specific opioid consumption, these issues were recognized and discussed in the original article. We believe our findings support the role of PECS I block as an effective component of multimodal analgesia for early postoperative pain following submuscular and dual-plane breast augmentation.No Level Assigned This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each submission to which Evidence-Based Medicine rankings are applicable. This excludes Review Articles, Book Reviews, and manuscripts that concern Basic Science, Animal Studies, Cadaver Studies, and Experimental Studies. 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 .