Defining the boundaries between surgeon-directed and anesthesiologist-led anesthesia in oral and maxillofacial surgery: time for a shared safety framework

Introduction

The administration of sedation and anesthesia in oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMS) has historically represented one of the most distinctive features of the specialty. Over decades, oral and maxillofacial surgeons have progressively developed advanced competencies in procedural sedation, office-based anesthesia, airway management, perioperative monitoring, and emergency response, allowing a substantial proportion of dentoalveolar and ambulatory surgical procedures to be safely performed outside the traditional hospital environment. Simultaneously, anesthesiology has evolved into an increasingly specialized discipline characterized by sophisticated perioperative risk stratification, management of medically complex patients, advanced airway rescue techniques, and comprehensive perioperative medicine.

The intersection between these two professional domains has generated growing discussion regarding the appropriate boundaries between surgeon-directed anesthesia and anesthesiologist-led anesthesia. This debate has become increasingly relevant because of the continuous expansion of office-based surgery, the aging population, the high prevalence of obesity and the increase in multimorbidity, the wider use of deep sedation techniques, and heightened public attention toward office-based anesthesia safety.

Importantly, the discussion should not be framed as a professional conflict between specialties. Rather, it should be approached as a patient-centered effort to define evidence-based criteria for selecting the safest anesthesia model according to patient characteristics, procedural complexity, available resources, and operator expertise. In this context, the modern challenge is no longer whether oral surgeons can administer anesthesia safely in selected patients, since extensive evidence supports this practice, but rather how to identify the clinical scenarios in which anesthesiologist involvement becomes advisable, preferable, or mandatory.

This editorial aims to discuss the evolving relationship between oral surgery and anesthesiology in office-based and ambulatory settings, focusing on patient selection, procedural complexity, training standards, safety systems, medico-legal implications, and future directions for interdisciplinary collaboration.

The historical evolution of office-based anesthesia in OMS

The administration of anesthesia by oral and maxillofacial surgeons has deep historical roots. In many countries, particularly in the United States, OMS training programs traditionally incorporated extensive hospital-based anesthesia rotations, introduction to general anesthesia techniques, airway management, and perioperative medicine. This integrated model allowed OMS practitioners to develop dual competencies in surgery and anesthesia care.

The contemporary OMS office-based anesthesia model has subsequently become highly structured, with emphasis on continuous monitoring, emergency preparedness, simulation-based education, staff certification, and quality assurance programs. The American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (AAOMS) has repeatedly emphasized that patient safety in office-based anesthesia depends on appropriate patient selection, rigorous training, continuous skills maintenance, and strict adherence to monitoring standards (1). Several reports have demonstrated low complication rates associated with OMS office-based anesthesia when these standards are respected (2,3). Retrospective analyses and large institutional series have generally shown acceptable safety profiles for moderate sedation and deep sedation administered by trained OMS teams in appropriately selected patients (4). These findings contributed substantially to the development of ambulatory oral surgery worldwide.

However, the increasing complexity of contemporary surgical populations has simultaneously modified the risk profile of office-based anesthesia. Elderly patients, individuals with obstructive sleep apnea, severe obesity, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, pulmonary disorders, psychiatric comorbidities, and polypharmacy are progressively encountered in outpatient dental and OMS practice. This epidemiological transition requires renewed reflection regarding the limits of office-based sedation models.

The central role of patient selection

Among all determinants of anesthesia safety, patient selection seems the single most important factor in deciding whether anesthesia can be safely managed directly by the oral surgeon or whether anesthesiologist involvement should be considered.

The American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) and several surgical organizations have emphasized that increasing ASA classification correlates with higher perioperative risk, particularly in office-based settings where immediate institutional backup may not be available (5-7). Available evidence suggests that office-based anesthesia can achieve acceptable safety outcomes in carefully selected ASA I and ASA II patients undergoing low- or moderate-complexity procedures. In contrast, the risk profile changes substantially in medically compromised individuals. The American College of Surgeons specifically recommended that ASA III and higher-risk patients should preferentially undergo procedures in accredited surgical environments with enhanced perioperative support (7).

Obesity and obstructive sleep apnea deserve particular attention. Body mass index, while not indicative of overall health and functional status, may provide a guideline for risk of airway compromise in deep sedation and general anesthesia. Airway compromise remains the most frequent mechanism underlying catastrophic anesthesia-related adverse events in office-based settings (5,6). Sedation-induced hypoventilation, airway obstruction, difficult mask ventilation, and impaired rescue capability may rapidly evolve into critical emergencies, particularly when deep sedation unintentionally transitions into general anesthesia.

Similarly, pediatric patients represent another area requiring careful consideration. Pediatric sedation guidelines increasingly emphasize the need for dedicated monitoring personnel, advanced airway competencies, and immediate rescue capability. Several professional societies now advocate that deep sedation or general anesthesia in children should involve a qualified anesthesia provider independent from the proceduralist, particularly for younger or medically complex children (8).

Consequently, the key question is not whether oral surgeons are capable of administering anesthesia, but rather which patients remain appropriate candidates for surgeon-directed anesthesia in office-based settings.

Procedural complexity and depth of sedation

Another critical variable is procedural complexity and the intended depth of sedation. Minimal and moderate sedation procedures in cooperative patients with preserved airway reflexes generally carry relatively predictable risk profiles. In contrast, deep sedation and general anesthesia involve progressive loss of airway protective reflexes, greater cardiorespiratory vulnerability, and increased need for advanced airway rescue capability. This is particularly true in patients who are not medically stable or patients with very prolonged procedures. In young healthy patients, for appropriate procedures, and with a specific education, the surgeon may be able to provide deep sedation, if necessary.

The ASA continuum of sedation clearly recognizes that transitions between sedation levels are often fluid and unpredictable (5,6). Patients receiving intended moderate sedation may unintentionally progress into deep sedation, while patients under deep sedation may rapidly approach general anesthesia. This phenomenon is particularly relevant in office-based OMS settings where the proceduralist simultaneously performs surgery and supervises anesthesia delivery.

The complexity of the surgical procedure itself also influences safety considerations. Extensive reconstructive procedures, prolonged surgeries, complex extractions in medically fragile individuals, orthognathic interventions, and procedures associated with significant bleeding risk may justify a lower threshold for anesthesiologist involvement.

In addition, emergency preparedness becomes increasingly critical as procedural complexity rises. Office-based facilities vary substantially regarding staffing models, equipment availability, crisis simulation training, recovery capabilities, and emergency transfer systems. Even technically excellent anesthesia providers may encounter major difficulties when emergencies occur in inadequately equipped environments. Therefore, decisions regarding anesthesia models should never rely exclusively on professional title or specialty background, but rather on a multidimensional evaluation incorporating patient risk, procedural demands, facility preparedness, and rescue capacity.

The operator-anesthetist model: advantages and limitations

The dual-role operator-anesthetist model remains one of the most debated aspects of office-based OMS anesthesia. Supporters of this model have shown that trained OMS practitioners can safely administer sedation while performing procedures, particularly when supported by qualified anesthesia assistants and standardized monitoring protocols (2,9). They also emphasize the efficiency, accessibility, and economic sustainability of office-based OMS anesthesia. Indeed, ambulatory OMS anesthesia has contributed substantially to reducing healthcare costs, shortening waiting times, improving patient convenience, and expanding access to surgical care. These advantages should not be underestimated, especially in healthcare systems already burdened by limited hospital resources.

Nevertheless, concerns persist regarding divided attention during critical intraoperative moments. The simultaneous performance of surgery and anesthesia supervision may theoretically delay recognition of evolving airway compromise, hemodynamic instability, or sedation-related adverse events. This issue becomes particularly important during deep sedation and general anesthesia, where continuous vigilance and rapid intervention are essential. Human factors research has repeatedly demonstrated that cognitive overload, task switching, and situational distraction may negatively affect crisis recognition and response. Recent literature has therefore increasingly focused on team-based safety models (10). Crisis resource management, simulation training, cognitive aids, structured emergency algorithms, and dedicated monitoring personnel are now recognized as fundamental components of office-based anesthesia safety. Importantly, modern patient safety science no longer evaluates safety solely according to individual technical competence, but rather according to the resilience of the entire system.

Training, credentialing, and continuing competence

A fundamental aspect of the debate concerns training equivalence and maintenance of competence. Professional societies consistently emphasize that individuals administering sedation and anesthesia should receive formal education appropriate to the intended depth of sedation and should maintain continuous competency in airway management, resuscitation, emergency pharmacology, and crisis management. The ASA has explicitly stated that no patient should be endangered by inadequate training, poor patient selection, insufficient monitoring, or deficient emergency preparedness (5,6). Similarly, AAOMS has promoted extensive educational initiatives, including office-based emergency airway management programs, simulation-based crisis training, and anesthesia assistant certification pathways (2,9).

However, substantial international heterogeneity exists regarding training standards and scope-of-practice regulations. In some jurisdictions, oral and maxillofacial surgeons receive extensive anesthesia exposure during residency; in others, anesthesia training may be significantly more limited. Likewise, regulatory frameworks regarding office-based sedation vary enormously between countries and even between states or provinces. This heterogeneity complicates universal recommendations and reinforces the need for individualized competency-based assessment rather than purely specialty-based assumptions. Future efforts should probably focus on harmonizing minimum competency standards, strengthening simulation-based education, implementing standardized accreditation systems, and promoting continuous quality improvement programs.

Medico-legal and ethical considerations

The medico-legal implications of office-based anesthesia are becoming increasingly relevant. Sedation-related adverse events in dental settings often receive substantial media attention, particularly when involving pediatric patients or catastrophic airway complications (5,8). These cases may profoundly influence public perception, regulatory responses, and professional liability.

From an ethical perspective, the principle of proportionality should guide anesthesia decisions. The selected anesthesia model should correspond to the complexity of the patient and procedure rather than to logistical convenience or economic considerations alone. Informed consent also deserves careful attention. Patients should clearly understand who is responsible for anesthesia administration, the qualifications of the providers involved, the intended depth of sedation, possible risks, emergency procedures, and available alternatives. Transparency regarding provider roles becomes particularly important in office-based environments where distinctions between surgeon-directed sedation, independent anesthesia providers, and anesthesiologist-led anesthesia may not be obvious to patients. Importantly, medico-legal scrutiny increasingly focuses not only on technical errors but also on systems-based failures, including inadequate screening, poor documentation, insufficient monitoring, absent emergency protocols, and delayed escalation of care.

Toward a shared and collaborative model

The future of anesthesia in OMS should not be based on territorial disputes between specialties. Instead, it should evolve toward collaborative, evidence-based, and patient-centered models. The most appropriate framework is probably not a rigid binary distinction between “oral surgeon-administered anesthesia” and “anesthesiologist-led anesthesia”, but rather a graduated continuum of shared responsibility.

Low-risk patients undergoing minor ambulatory procedures may safely receive surgeon-directed sedation within appropriately accredited facilities operated by adequately trained OMS teams. Conversely, higher-risk patients, advanced age, significant comorbidity, severe obesity, anticipated difficult airway, prolonged procedures, pediatric vulnerability, and extensive surgical interventions should progressively shift the balance toward anesthesiologist participation. This approach aligns with modern perioperative medicine principles emphasizing individualized risk stratification and dynamic resource allocation.

Interdisciplinary collaboration could also substantially improve perioperative pathways (2,5-7,10). Shared protocols, joint simulation exercises, standardized escalation criteria, multidisciplinary airway management training, and common safety metrics may help reduce polarization between specialties.

Furthermore, technological advances may reshape future office-based anesthesia. Capnography, artificial intelligence-assisted monitoring, enhanced sedation depth analysis, telemedicine support, electronic incident reporting systems, and standardized crisis checklists may all contribute to safer ambulatory anesthesia practice. Nevertheless, technology can never replace clinical judgment. Ultimately, the safest anesthesia model is the one capable of rapidly recognizing complications, initiating rescue maneuvers, and escalating care without delay.

International variability in anesthesia models and regulatory frameworks

One of the major challenges in defining universally applicable recommendations lies in the substantial international heterogeneity regarding sedation governance, training pathways, and scope-of-practice regulations in OMS. Different healthcare systems have developed markedly distinct models balancing accessibility, efficiency, patient safety, and professional responsibilities.

In the United States, office-based anesthesia administered by oral and maxillofacial surgeons represents a historically consolidated model supported by structured OMS anesthesia training pathways and extensive professional regulation through the AAOMS (2,9). Conversely, several European countries adopt more restrictive frameworks, often requiring the presence of a dedicated anesthesiologist for deep sedation or general anesthesia procedures, particularly in hospital-based environments.

The United Kingdom has progressively implemented stricter sedation governance following concerns regarding outpatient anesthesia safety, with increasing emphasis on dedicated sedation practitioners, formal accreditation pathways, and enhanced procedural monitoring (11). Similarly, Australian and New Zealand guidelines strongly emphasize structured sedation competency frameworks and rigorous patient-selection criteria.

In parallel, some healthcare systems have developed integrated models involving dental anesthesiologists as independent perioperative specialists specifically trained for ambulatory dental and maxillofacial procedures (12). These models may offer additional flexibility in balancing procedural efficiency and anesthesia expertise.

Importantly, regulatory variability extends not only between countries but also between regions, states, and institutions, reflecting differences in medico-legal environments, healthcare economics, workforce availability, and historical professional development. Consequently, future international recommendations should probably avoid rigid specialty-based mandates and instead focus on harmonized competency-based standards centered on patient risk stratification, facility preparedness, and emergency rescue capability.

Conclusions

The debate regarding when anesthesia should be directly administered by the oral surgeon and when anesthesiologist involvement becomes preferable or necessary represents one of the most important contemporary discussions in ambulatory OMS. Available evidence strongly supports the safety of office-based surgeon-directed anesthesia in carefully selected patients managed within appropriately structured systems characterized by rigorous training, advanced monitoring, emergency preparedness, and robust quality assurance (2,3,6,9). At the same time, increasing patient complexity, procedural invasiveness, obesity prevalence, pediatric vulnerability, and medico-legal expectations require more refined and evidence-based boundary definitions.

The central issue is not professional exclusivity but patient safety. Modern perioperative care should therefore move beyond simplistic specialty-based narratives and adopt risk-adjusted, competency-based, and system-oriented frameworks. Future progress will likely depend on stronger interdisciplinary collaboration between oral surgeons, anesthesiologists, dental anesthesiologists, perioperative nurses, regulatory agencies, and patient safety organizations. Defining appropriate boundaries is not an attempt to limit professional autonomy. Rather, it is an essential step toward ensuring that each patient receives the most appropriate level of anesthesia care according to individual risk, procedural complexity, and available resources. In the evolving landscape of ambulatory surgery, excellence will increasingly be defined not by who administers anesthesia, but by how effectively the entire system protects patient safety.

In conclusion, the growing complexity of ambulatory oral surgery, together with the increasing heterogeneity in training pathways, regulatory frameworks, patient risk profiles, and anesthesia models, highlights the urgent need for a comprehensive scoping review on this topic. Such an effort would allow systematic mapping of the available evidence, identification of current gaps and inconsistencies, and clarification of the boundaries between surgeon-directed and anesthesiologist-led anesthesia. Ultimately, this process could provide the scientific foundation for more advanced, multidisciplinary, and internationally shared guidelines, helping healthcare institutions and policymakers develop clearer legal and regulatory frameworks aimed at maximizing patient safety while preserving appropriate professional competencies.

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of Fondazione Paolo Procacci for its scientific contribution to the manuscript preparation and editing process, as well as for the valuable scientific discussions inside of the VIBRA Group that supported the development of this work. The final text of this manuscript was reviewed with the support of ChatGPT.

Footnote

Provenance and Peer Review: This article was commissioned by the editorial office, Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Anesthesia. The article has undergone external peer review.

Peer Review File: Available at https://joma.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/joma-2026-0013/prf

Funding: None.

Conflicts of Interest: The author has completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://joma.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/joma-2026-0013/coif). G.V. serves as an unpaid editorial board member of Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Anesthesia from November 2025 to December 2026. The author has no other conflicts of interest to declare.

Ethical Statement: The author is accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Open Access Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits the non-commercial replication and distribution of the article with the strict proviso that no changes or edits are made and the original work is properly cited (including links to both the formal publication through the relevant DOI and the license). See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

References

1. Simon NB, Barnett KM, Sweitzer B, et al. Dental Anesthesia Guidelines and Regulations of US States and Major Professional Organizations: A Review. J Patient Saf 2025;21:258-81. [Crossref] [PubMed]
2. American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (AAOMS). Office-based Anesthesia Provided by the Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeon - White paper. Rosemont, IL, USA: AAOMS; 2024. Available online: https://aaoms.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/office_based_anesthesia_whitepaper_1.pdf
3. Bridenbaugh PO. Office-based anesthesia: requirements for patient safety. Anesth Prog 2005;52:86-90. [Crossref] [PubMed]
4. Robert LR Jr, Renton T. Sedation and General Anesthesia in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (OMS). In: Andersson L, Krishnan DG, Peacock ZS. editors. Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. John Wiley & Sons Ltd.; 2025:48-58.
5. American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA). Statement on sedation and anesthesia administration in dental office-based settings. Schaumburg, IL, USA: ASA; 2022. Available online: https://www.asahq.org/standards-and-practice-parameters/statement-on-sedation--anesthesia-administration-in-dental-officebased-settings
6. American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA). Statement on office-based anesthesia. Updated October 23, 2024. Available online: https://www.asahq.org/standards-and-practice-parameters/statement-on-office-based-anesthesia#:~:text=Developed%20By:%20Committee%20on%20Ambulatory,well%20as%20technology%20and%20practice
7. American College of Surgeons. Patient safety principles for office-based surgery utilizing moderate sedation/analgesia. 2019. Available online: https://www.facs.org/about-acs/statements/patient-safety-principles-for-office-based-surgery-utilizing-moderate-sedation-analgesia/
8. Coté CJ, Wilson S, et al. Guidelines for Monitoring and Management of Pediatric Patients Before, During, and After Sedation for Diagnostic and Therapeutic Procedures: Update 2016. Pediatrics 2016;138:e20161212. [Crossref] [PubMed]
9. Wiemer SJ, Nathan JM, Heggestad BT, et al. Safety of Outpatient Procedural Sedation Administered by Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons: The Mayo Clinic Experience in 17,634 Sedations (2004 to 2019). J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2021;79:990-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
10. Seeley RC, Seeley LD, Louis PJ, et al. Cognitive aids improve performance in oral and maxillofacial surgery outpatient anesthesia emergency simulations: a pilot study. J Oral Maxillofac Anesth 2025;4:21.
11. Leroy PL, Krauss BS, Costa LR, et al. Procedural sedation competencies: a review and multidisciplinary international consensus statement on knowledge, skills, training, and credentialing. Br J Anaesth 2025;134:817-29. [Crossref] [PubMed]
12. Tannyhill RJ 3rd. Development of Competencies in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Training. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am 2022;34:505-13. [Crossref] [PubMed]