Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Frontiers in Surgery logoLink to Frontiers in Surgery
. 2022 Apr 4;9:868287. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.868287

The Anesthesiologist's Perspective Regarding Non-intubated Thoracic Surgery: A Scoping Review

Giulio Luca Rosboch 1,*, Paraskevas Lyberis 2, Edoardo Ceraolo 1, Eleonora Balzani 3, Martina Cedrone 3, Federico Piccioni 4, Enrico Ruffini 2,3, Luca Brazzi 1,3, Francesco Guerrera 2,3
PMCID: PMC9013756  PMID: 35445075

Abstract

Non-intubated thoracic surgery (NITS) is a growing practice, alongside minimally invasive thoracic surgery. To date, only a consensus of experts provided opinions on NITS leaving a number of questions unresolved. We then conducted a scoping review to clarify the state of the art regarding NITS. The systematic review of all randomized and non-randomized clinical trials dealing with NITS, based on Pubmed, EMBASE, and Scopus, retrieved 665 articles. After the exclusion of ineligible studies, 53 were assessed examining: study type, Country of origin, surgical procedure, age, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologist's physical status, airway management device, conversion to orotracheal intubation and pulmonary complications rates and length of hospital stay. It emerged that NITS is a procedure performed predominantly in Asia, and certain European Countries. In China, NITS is more frequently performed for parenchymal resection surgery, whereas in Europe, it is mainly employed for pleural pathologies. The most commonly used device for airway management is the laryngeal mask. The conversion rate to orotracheal intubation is a~3%. The results of the scoping review seem to suggest that NITS procedures are becoming increasingly popular, but its role needs to be better defined. Further randomized clinical trials are needed to better define the role of the clinical variables possibly impacting on the technique effectiveness.

Systematic Review Registration

https://osf.io/mfvp3/, identifier: 10.17605/OSF.IO/MFVP3.

Keywords: non-intubated thoracic surgery, anesthesia, NITS, VATS, thoracic surgery, regional anesthesia

Introduction

Parallel to the growth of minimally invasive surgical thoracic techniques, non-intubated thoracic surgery (NITS) has been increasingly used (1, 2). NITS procedures appear to avoid either the adverse effects of mechanical ventilation in patients with already impaired pulmonary functional capacity before surgery, and the residual effects of neuromuscular blockers, providing more rapid recovery of respiratory muscle function and less perioperative morbidity (1, 3).

While NITS technique is becoming increasingly popular, there is still no clarity in how it is defined and performed. For example, the procedure is reported in the literature as non-intubated thoracic surgery, but also referred to as tubeless video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) or awake thoracic surgery.

Although an expert consensus recently attempted to clarify and establish the critical points of NITS, some perioperative surgical and anesthesiological evaluation variables remained undefined (4).

In order to better clarify the background of NITS, surgical indications, type of patient to be proposed for the procedure, airway management, postoperative complications, and length of stay (LOS) a scoping review based on a systematic literature review was conducted.

Protocol and Registration

The study protocol was developed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines (5) revised by the members of the thoracic surgery research team of “Città della Salute e della Scienza” university hospital (Turin – Italy). The final protocol was registered prospectively with the Open Science Framework on 26th September 2021 (https://osf.io/mfvp3/).

Eligibility Criteria

Peer-reviewed articles dealing with NITS with the following characteristics were identified as potentially eligible: (1) randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs (NRCTs); (2) published in English; (3) involving adult participants (>18 years old).

Information Sources and Search Strategy

Potentially relevant studies were searched through September 2021 in Pubmed, EMBASE and Scopus using the search strategies reported in the Supplementary Materials (Supplementary File 1). The results were exported to EndNote V.X9 (Clarivate Analytics, PA, USA), and the duplicates were automatically removed.

Studies Evaluation and Selection of Sources of Evidence

The review process was carried out in two steps consisting of evaluating the titles, abstracts, and then full text of all publications identified by our searches for potentially relevant manuscripts. For both levels, four authors worked in pairs (GLR, EC, EB, and MC) and screened the articles with conflicts resolved by consensus and discussion with other reviewers.

Data Charting Process and Data Items and Synthesis of Results

A planned Excel spreadsheet was developed by reviewers to determine which variables to extract used (study characteristics, patient characteristics, surgical procedures, country, age, number of patients, body mass index (BMI), Forced Expiratory Volume in the 1st second (FEV1), diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCO), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status classification, intraoperative drugs used, type of anesthesia, type of regional analgesia, bispectral index (BIS) utilization, airway management device, conversion to orotracheal intubation (OTI), conversion to thoracotomy, postoperative pain, postoperative pulmonary complications, and postoperative days of hospitalization). The reviewers independently charted the data in pairs. If not available, any ongoing study was contacted to include unpublished data if applicable. We grouped the studies by the type of study (with or without a comparison group). Where we identified a systematic review, we counted the number of studies included in the review that potentially met our inclusion criteria and noted how many studies had been missed by our search.

Results

Selection of Sources of Evidence PRISMA

We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines (5). The systematic literature search performed in September 2021 retrieved 665 results. After deduplication, 283 studies were evaluated. Three hundred eighty-two and 234 were, respectively excluded following the first and second evaluation process bringing the number of studies included in the scoping review to 49. To these, four more articles (6–9) previously reported in systematic reviews were added leading the total number of articles included to 53, all published after 2011.

General Characteristics of Included Studies

Among the 53 included studies, 30 were cohort studies comparing NITS and intubated-patient thoracic surgery, whereas 22 were single-cohort studies of patients undergoing NITS. Seventeen were conducted in Taiwan, 15 in China, nine in Italy, four in South Korea, two in Germany and one in Turkey, United Kingdom, Russia, Switzerland, and Hungary (Figure 1). Patients' characteristics are summarized in Table 1.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Frequency distribution of studies conducted on NITS.

Table 1.

Summary table of population characteristics of single-cohort observational studies.

Author Year Country Type of study Surgical procedure N of patients Age group A Age Group B BMI Group A BMI group B ASA I/II/III/IV (%)
AlGhamdi et al. (10) 2018 Korea Retrospective Lobectomy 62 64.9 ± 10.5 66.1 ± 9.5 23.8 ± 3.2 23.5 ± 2.9
Ambrogi et al. (11) 2017 Italy Retrospective Metastasectomy 58 62 (46–71) 66 (51–73)
Caviezel et al. (12) 2019 Switzerland Retrospective Endoscopic thoracic sympathectomy 20 28.6 (17–46) 28.5 (20–55) 23.6 (17–30.4) 21.8 (19.1–26.3)
Chen et al. (13) 2011 Taiwan Retrospective Lobectomy 30 57.9 ± 10.4 56.5 ± 9.5 24.0 ± 3.2 23.4 ± 3.3 3.3/70/26.7/0
Chen et al. (14) 2016 China RCT Endoscopic thoracic sympathectomy 168 23.3 ± 6.8 21.8 ± 6.1
Chen et al. (15) 2016 China RCT Endoscopic thoracic sympathectomy 221 22.9 ± 6.6 21.5 ± 5.4
Cui et al. (3) 2016 China Retrospective Bullectomy 90 24.6 ± 5.6 25.2 ± 11.6 <25 <25 Only ASA I and II
Cui et al. (3) 2016 China Retrospective Endoscopic thoracic sympathectomy 89 22.1 ± 7.2 26.5 ± 9.5 <25 <25 Only ASA I and II
Cui et al. (3) 2016 China Retrospective Mediastinal tumor resection 91 38.3 ± 11.0 32.7 ± 9.0 <25 <25 Only ASA I and II
Furák et al. (16) 2020 Hungary Retrospective Lobectomy 38 64 (63) 63.03 (63) 24.83 ± 3.07 24.31 ± 4.17
Guerrera et al. (6) 2020 Italy Prospective Lung biopsies 94 60.4 ± 2.0 62.1 ± 12.5 26.8 ± 4.8 26.4 ± 4.6 1.5/12.1/80.3
/9.1
Guo et al. (17) 2016 China Retrospective Segmentectomy 140 49.10 ± 12.78 56.63 ± 12.70 21.59 ± 2.26 22.49 ± 3.10 25/68.8/6.2/0
Guo et al. (18) 2016 China Retrospective Bilateral bullectomy 37 21.9 ± 5.2 26.2 ± 11.4 18.6 ± 2.7 18.9 ± 2.3 Only ASA I and II
Hsiao et al. (19) 2017 Taiwan Retrospective Decortication 33 76.4 ± 6.0 76 ± 11.5
Huang et al. (20) 2020 China Retrospective Mediastinal tumor resection 32 63.90 ± 11.76 67.43 ± 14.40 22.01 ± 3.67 23.43 ± 2.25 0/93/7/0
Hwang et al. (21) 2018 Korea Retrospective Bullectomy 41
Irons et al. (22) 2017 United
Kingdom		 Retrospective Elective minor VATS procedure 73 54.9 ± 19.3 50.8 ± 19.2 26.2 ± 6.5 25.8 ± 5.8
Jung et al. (23) 2018 Korea Retrospective Bullectomy 183 20.4 ± 7.0 22.9 ± 9.2 19.7 ± 2.5 19.8 ± 2.3
Ke et al. (24) 2020 Taiwan Retrospective Lung resections 160 56.5 ± 16.8 52.3 ± 16.8 23.5 ± 3.3 23.9 ± 3.2 6/63/21/0
Kocatürk et al. (25) 2019 Turkey Prospective Pleural biopsies 293 55.1 ± 17.2 52.2 ± 15.7 21.4/44.1/29
/5.5
Lan et al. (26) 2018 China Retrospective Lobectomy 119 55.34 ± 13.83 56.98 ± 11.05 22.40 ± 2.85 22.51 ± 2.57 82.4/16.8/0.8/0
Liang et al. (27) 2019 China Retrospective Mediastinal tumor resection 198 45.61 ± 14.08 48.48 ± 14.64 22.93 ± 2.58 23.2 ± 3.62 8/91/1/0
Liu et al. (28) 2021 Taiwan Retrospective Segmentectomy 86 60.5 ± 12.1 58.2 ± 13.0 22.1 ± 2.0 22.4 ± 2.7 16.3/58.1/23.3
/2.3
Liu et al. (29) 2014 China RCT Bullectomy 354 32.7 28.7
Liu et al. (29) 2014 China RCT Lobectomy 356 56.2 56.2
Liu et al. (29) 2014 China RCT Wedge resections 355 55.7 50.6
Liu et al. (30) 2016 China Retrospective Lobectomy 339 56.0 ± 10.3 57.3 ± 10.5 22.4 ± 2.5 22.5 ± 3.43
Liu et al. (30) 2021 China Retrospective Segmentectomy 339 51.2 ± 13.0 56.0 ± 12.8 22.2 ± 2.2 22.4 ± 3.1
Liu et al. (31) 2019 China Retrospective Mediastinal tumor resection 225 59.4 (33–67) 57.3 (37–76) 22.7
(17.1–33.5)		 23.2
(16.6–31.0)		 Only ASA I and II
Mao et al. (32) 2021 China Retrospective Mediastinal tumor resection 40 43.90 ± 15.18 54.26 ± 11.64 23.01 ± 3.64 23.49 ± 2.52 47.62/52.38
Metelmann et al. (33) 2021 Germany Retrospective Elective minor VATS procedure 104 55.43 ± 18.71 57.83 ± 18.12 25.13 ± 4,565 26.37 ± 4.38 13.04/47.82
/34.78/4.35
Mineo et al. (34) 2014 Italy Retrospective Pleural effusions 231 66.0 ± 10.5 64.7 ± 12.7
Pompeo et al. (9) 2012 Italy RCT Lung resections 63 64 ± 9 65 ± 7 24 ± 4 23 ± 3 No ASA IV
Pompeo et al. (7) 2007 Italy Retrospective Pneumothorax 49 28 ± 14 26 ± 11
Wang et al. (35) 2021 Taiwan Retrospective Lobectomy 194 59.6 ± 11.3 61.9 ± 11.5 103.9 ± 7.1 114.1 ± 6.4
Akopov et al. (36) 2015 Russia Prospective trial Lung abscess 65 58.4 (24 to 78) 0/5/29/66
Ambrogi et al. (37) 2014 Italy Cohort study Wedge resection 20 57 (36–76) 26.2 (17–38)
Chen et al. (38) 2016 China Cohort study Endoscopic thoracic sympathectomy 58 24.3 (17–48)
Chen et al. (39) 2016 China Cohort study Endoscopic thoracic sympathectomy 85 23 (16–45)
Chen et al. (40) 2014 Taiwan Retrospective Metastasectomy 446 56.9 ± 16.8
Cherchi et al. (41) 2020 Italy Retrospective Lung biopsies 97 66 ± 10 27.0 ± 4.7
Hung et al. (42) 2015 Taiwan Retrospective Lobectomy 238 59.7 ± 11.4 22.9 ± 2.6 11.8/61.7/26.5
/0
Hung et al. (43) 2014 Taiwan Retrospective Lung nodules 32 52.8 ± 11.3 22.0 ± 2.4 41/50/9/0
Hung et al. (44) 2014 Taiwan Retrospective Mediastinal or pleural tumors 109 56.4 ± 14.0 22.3 ± 2.8 19.3/64.2/16.5
/0
Hung et al. (45) 2013 Taiwan Retrospective Lobectomy 21 61.0 ± 15.2 22.8 ± 3.6 9.5/52.4/38.1/0
Hung et al. (46) 2019 Taiwan Retrospective Lobectomy 1,025 59.3 ± 12.3 22.6 ± 2.7
Li et al. (47) 2020 China Prospective trial Lung resections or sympathectomy 57 42.3 ± 19.5 <28 kg/m2 Only ASA I and II
Liu et al. (48) 2018 Taiwan Retrospective Sublobar resection 50 53.6 ± 18.0
Liu et al. (49) 2020 Taiwan Retrospective Segmentectomy 32 58.3 ± 13.2 21.9 ± 2.0 21.9/59.4/15.6
/3.1
Liu et al. (50) 2020 Taiwan Retrospective Wedge resection 55 44.8 ± 11.1 89/11/0/0
Moon et al. (51) 2018 Korea Retrospective Lung resections, mediastinal or pleural tumors 115 61.8 (± 13.3) 23.8 (± 3.0)
Pompeo et al. (2) 2019 Italy Retrospective Lung biopsies 112 60 ± 12 26 ± 3
Pompeo et al. (8) 2011 Italy Retrospective Bullectomy 35 60 (55–65) 23.9 (22–27)
Starke et al. (52) 2020 Germany Retrospective Minor thoracic surgery 88 60.14 ± 17.42 25.94 ± 4.95 10.4/33.3/47.9
/8.3
Starke et al. (52) 2020 Germany Retrospective Major thoracic surgery 89 67.94 ± 12.28 24.05 ± 4.42 0/5/75/0
Tseng et al. (53) 2012 Taiwan Retrospective Lung nodules 46 54.5 ± 11.5 8.7/76.1/15.2/0
Wang et al. (54) 2017 Taiwan Retrospective Lung resections 188 56.0 ± 12.5 22.7 ± 3.3 20.2/58.0/21.8
/0
Wang et al. (55) 2018 Taiwan Retrospective Lung resections 28 68.8 ± 12.8 22.0 ± 2.3 0/18/79/4
Open in a new tab

Regarding the described surgical procedures: 17.9% were lobectomies, 10.7% endoscopic thoracic sympathectomies, 10.7% bullectomies, 8.9% lung biopsies, 7.1% mediastinal tumor resections, wedge resections, segmentectomies, and lung resections, respectively. In 5.4% of cases the procedure was classified as minor thoracic surgery, without reporting a precise surgical technique, 3.6% were mastectomy and lung resections, mediastinal or pleural tumors, and major thoracic surgeries. Pleural effusions, pneumothorax, lung abscess, pleural biopsies, and decortications were reported in the 1.8% of cases. Surgical procedures as used in different Country are reported in Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Frequency distribution of NITS surgical procedures by country of origin.

Anesthesiological and Intraoperative Management

Not all studies reported information on how the airways were managed. Laryngeal mask (LMA) was used in 37.5% of cases, facemask in 31.3% of cases, Venturi mask in 22.9% of cases, high-flow nasal cannulas (HFNC) in 6.3%, and nasal cannulas in 2.0%. The type of device used in different Countries is reported in Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

Frequency of airway management devices used within the various clinical trials divided by country of the primary country in which the study was conducted.

Average conversion rate to intubation was 0.9% in China, 3.9% in Taiwan, 2.3% in Italy, 1% in Turkey, 5% in Germany and 3.7% in South Korea. The conversion rate to thoracotomy was estimated to be 0.1% in China, 0.3% in Taiwan, 2.3% in Italy, and 3.5% in South Korea. Not all studies reported these data.

Main Outocomes

Length of hospital stay and postoperative pulmonary complications rate, as collected in studies comparing the cohort of patients treated with NITS and intubated VATS, are shown in Table 2.

Table 2.

Summary table of population characteristics of cohort studies.

Author Country Type of study Surgical procedure N of patients Postoperative pulmonary complications group A vs. group B LOS group A vs. group B
AlGhamdi et al. (10) Korea Retrospective Lobectomy 62 Not significant Not significant
Ambrogi et al. (11) Italy Retrospective Metastasectomy 58 Significant, favors NITS
Caviezel et al. (12) Switzerland Retrospective Endoscopic thoracic sympathectomy 20 Not significant
Chen et al. (13) Taiwan Retrospective Lobectomy 30 Not significant Significant, favors NITS
Chen et al. (14) China RCT Endoscopic thoracic sympathectomy 168 Not significant
Chen et al. (15) China RCT Endoscopic thoracic sympathectomy 221 Not significant
Cui et al. (3) China Retrospective Bullectomy 90 Not significant Significant, favors NITS
Cui et al. (3) Endoscopic thoracic sympathectomy 89 Not significant Significant, favors NITS
Cui et al. (3) Mediastinal tumor resection 91 Not significant Significant, favors NITS
Furák et al. (16) Hungary Retrospective Lobectomy 38 Significant, favors NITS
Guerrera et al. (6) Italy Prospective Lung biopsies 94 Significant, favors NITS Significant, favors NITS
Guo et al. (17) China Retrospective Segmentectomy 140 Not significant Significant, favors NITS
Guo et al. (18) China Retrospective Bilateral bullectomy 37 Not significant Not significant
Hsiao et al. (19) Taiwan Retrospective Decortication 33 Significant, favors NITS Significant, favors NITS
Huang et al. (20) China Retrospective Mediastinal tumor resection 32 Not significant Not significant
Hwang et al. (21) Korea Retrospective Bullectomy 41 Not significant Significant, favors NITS
Irons et al. (22) United Kingdom Retrospective Elective minor VATS procedure 73 Not significant
Jung et al. (23) Korea Retrospective Bullectomy 183 Significant, favors NITS
Ke et al. (24) Taiwan Retrospective Lung resections 160 Not significant Significant, favors NITS
Kocatürk et al. (25) Turkey Prospective Pleural biopsies 293 Not significant Significant, favors NITS
Lan et al. (26) China Retrospective Lobectomy 119 Significant, favors NITS
Liang et al. (27) China Retrospective Mediastinal tumor resection 198 Significant, favors NITS
Liu et al. (28) Taiwan Retrospective Segmentectomy 86 Not significant Not significant
Liu et al. (29) China RCT Bullectomy 354 Significant, favors NITS Significant, favors NITS
Liu et al. (29) Lobectomy 356 Significant, favors NITS
Liu et al. (29) Wedge resections 355 Not significant
Liu et al. (30) China Retrospective Lobectomy 340 Not significant
Liu et al. (30) Segmentectomy 339 Not significant Significant, favors NITS
Liu et al. (31) China Retrospective Mediastinal tumor resection 225 Not significant Not significant
Mao et al. (32) China Retrospective Mediastinal tumor resection 40 Not significant
Metelmann et al. (33) Germany Retrospective Elective minor VATS procedure 104 Not significant Not significant
Mineo et al. (34) Italy Retrospective Pleural effusions 231 Not significant Not significant
Pompeo et al. (9) Italy RCT Lung resections 63 Significant, favors NITS
Pompeo et al. (7) Italy Retrospective Pneumothorax 49 Significant, favors NITS
Wang et al. (35) Taiwan Retrospective Lobectomy 194 Not significant
Open in a new tab

Same data as collected from single cohort studies are instead shown in Figure 4. In Figure 4 are also presented the data relating to pulmonary complications by type of procedure as taken from single cohort studies.

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Open in a new tab

(A) Postoperative pulmonary complications expressed as frequency split by type of surgery. (B). Length of stay, expressed as mean and standard deviation, split by type of surgery.

Perioperative Analgesia

Analgesia performed in the perioperative period was not reported in all studies. Of the studies analyzed, 42.4% used intercostal nerve block, 40.7% thoracic epidural analgesia, 6.8% paravertebral block, 5.1% infiltration with local anesthetic of the wound, 3.4% erector spinae plane block, and 1.6% placed a catheter at the paravertebral site for continuous analgesia. Evaluating NITS vs. non-NITS cohort studies the postoperative pain was significantly lower in the NITS group in five studies (3, 6, 14, 15, 22), whereas the findings were not statistically significant in six studies (19, 21, 25, 28, 31, 32).

Meta-analyzing the available data from observational studies (Figure 5) with a continuous random-effects model showed that the mean postoperative pain rate (VAS) is 1.842 (95% C.I. 1.451–2.233) with a heterogeneity of 96.6%, p < 0.001.

Figure 5.

Figure 5

Open in a new tab

Postoperative pain on day 1 expressed in VAS. Evaluation by all observational studies. Figure created with OpenMetaAnalyst.

Discussion

In this scoping review, we analyzed 53 primary studies regarding NITS published between 2011 and 2021. The studies are all fairly recent confirming that NITS procedures have gained acceptance quite recently.

One of the objectives of this analysis was to evaluate the clinical context in which NITS is performed. Since the consensus of experts we referred to did not investigate this particular aspect in detail (4), we decided to assess whether there is a type of surgical procedure or airway management on which there is consensus among different Countries. What seems to emerge is that NITS is a procedure performed predominantly in Asia, and in some European countries, first Italy. We did not find any studies conducted in the United States. The trials conducted are mostly focused on selected populations, allowing direct comparison between intubated and non-intubated thoracic surgery. The shortage of clinical trials justifies the lack of consensus and guidelines on its management.

We evaluated the type of surgery performed during NITS by Country: while in China it was mainly used in lung parenchymal surgery, and in sympathectomies for hyperhidrosis, in Italy, it was mainly adopted for minor thoracic operations, such as lung biopsies or pleural effusions, confirming what Pompeo et al. reported in their European survey (56). In Taiwan instead, NITS procedures were used in a more heterogeneous manner, including both major parenchymal procedures, such as lobectomies, and minor procedures.

When assessing the anthropometric characteristics of the population, we found that there was a considerable heterogeneity, and this was probably due to a lack of specific guidelines indicating the population in which NITS procedures is most correctly applied. Even considering the NITS expert consensus, we noted that only ASA I and II stage patients, aged between 16 and 60 years, were included. This, in our opinion, hardly represents the average patient who ordinarily undergoes thoracic surgery. Moreover, we believe that such procedures would be rather helpful in frail patients with ASA III and IV status to avoid the stress related to intubation and positive pressure mechanical ventilation in patients with compromised respiratory function (3). There are cases in literature where this technique is used in patients with severe comorbidities, including obesity (57, 58) whereas other groups considered them as contraindications (59).

Regarding airway management, we noted that there was a difference among the Countries considered. The facemask was the most widespread device across the board. In China the LMA was used in most cases, as well as in Germany and in Hungary. This can easily be related to the fact that these Countries mainly performed major thoracic surgery. Although the LMA support during NITS has been described in the literature, it certainly does not allow lighter sedation. To date, there is no recommendation on which device to preferentially use for airway management (60, 61) even if He et al. suggest the use of LMA, nasal cannulas, or face mask as alternatives (4). From our review, the type of device for airway management is highly dependent on the background of the study and the practices of individual centers.

In this regard, a fundamental issue on NITS definition arises, as three studies conducted in China used LMA with extemporaneous curarization, and 22 studies reported during surgery, BIS values below 60, as under general anesthesia. There is still a lack of definition on the depth of sedation in the context of NITS, and this has resulted in the development of other terminologies we refer to, for example, awake thoracic surgery. However, it is confusing and does not allow focusing on the NITS technique in a univocal way: the expert consensus should aim to provide more information on the depth of sedation in NITS contexts.

The rate of conversion to intubation was highly variable from Nation to Nation, as it was the rate of thoracotomy. Considering the percentages reported in these articles, the average conversion rate to orotracheal intubation was about 3%. The lower rate of intubation found in China could be related to its prevalent use of the LMA. It is worth noting the unexpectedly high conversion rate observed in Germany despite the diffuse use of LMA.

Referring to outcome, we found that in 83% of cases there were no significant differences between the two cohorts, whereas in 27% NITS was proven to reduce pulmonary complications. Also, regarding the effectiveness in limiting the LOS, in 63% of cases NITS was considered more effective while 37% found no statistically significant difference between the two groups (Table 2).

When evaluating single cohort studies, pulmonary complications predominantly developed after parenchymal surgery, whereas for the LOS we did not see a clear correlation with the type of surgical procedure (Figure 4). According to Lan et al. (26) patients who underwent NITS had a higher incidence of atelectasis, pleural effusion, or pulmonary exudation in the face of a better LOS and general postoperative comorbidities compared with intubated patients. From the perspective of NITS and pulmonary complications, this issue remains controversial. In four recent meta-analyses, it is confirmed that NITS would appear to reduce the LOS, providing further validation for our analysis (62–65).

From a pain perspective, our findings were inconclusive: there was no evidence to prove the superiority of NITS in terms of postoperative pain over intubated thoracic surgery. About half of the cases had nonsignificant postoperative pain between the two groups; no regional anesthesia was performed but only sedation. Therefore, this fact might have impacted the final result. In contrast, regional anesthesia had been performed in all studies in which there was a statistically significant difference between the two groups. When evaluating postoperative pain among observational studies, although there was high heterogeneity (I2 = 96.6%) a very low score of pain at postoperative day 1 was found (Figure 5). The NITS technique, accompanied by regional anesthesia, might be a good way to reduce postoperative pain in surgery at high risk of developing persistent postoperative pain and prone to high acute postoperative pain (66, 67). Reducing opioid consumption in commonly frail patients, such as those undergoing NITS, could affect postoperative hospitalization and complication outcomes (6).

This study has limitations. The major is that it is based on mostly retrospective studies. Results therefore should always consider the low quality due to bias from retrospective studies.

Conclusion

NITS procedures are becoming increasingly popular, but they need more definition, especially the setting in which they are performed. It would be necessary, for example, to reach an agreement on the patient sedation, and airway management devices to perform NITS techniques in the same way across the countries. The choice of surgical procedure, as well as that of the patient, have not been well-defined in the literature yet. It is our opinion that frail patients have fewer complications during NITS than during intubated thoracic surgery (6). From a postoperative patient management perspective, the impact of NITS techniques on LOS remains unknown as the existing evidence available in the literature is conflicting. A regional anesthesia approach might be recommended in NITS procedures to reduce acute postoperative pain. Future studies should be directed to evaluate the benefits of NITS in patients with impaired lung function or other comorbidities (e.g., obesity, ASA III, ASA IV). Moreover, other randomized controlled trials are needed to establish more robust evidence.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Author Contributions

GR: conceptualization, formal analysis, investigation, methodology, project administration, supervision, validation, visualization, writing—original draft, and writing—review & editing. PL: data curation, software, visualization, writing—original draft, and writing—review & editing. EC: conceptualization, formal analysis, investigation, methodology, project administration, validation, writing—original draft, and writing—review & editing. EB and MC: data curation, formal analysis, investigation, visualization, and writing—original draft. FP: writing—original draft and writing—review & editing. ER: validiation and writing—review & editing. LB: conceptualization and writing—review & editing. FG: conceptualization, project administration, resources, methodology, supervision, validation, writing—original draft, and writing—review & editing. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher's Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary Material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsurg.2022.868287/full#supplementary-material

Click here for additional data file. (8.8KB, xlsx)

References

  • 1.Gonzalez-Rivas D, Bonome C, Fieira E, Aymerich H, Fernandez R, Delgado M, et al. Non-intubated video-assisted thoracoscopic lung resections: the future of thoracic surgery? Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. (2016) 49:721–31. 10.1093/ejcts/ezv136 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Pompeo E, Rogliani P, Atinkaya C, Guerrera F, Ruffini E, Iñiguez-Garcia MA, et al. Nonintubated surgical biopsy of undetermined interstitial lung disease: a multicentre outcome analysis. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. (2019) 28:744–50. 10.1093/icvts/ivy320 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Cui F, Liu J, Li S, Yin W, Xin X, Shao W, et al. Tubeless video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) under non-intubated, intravenous anesthesia with spontaneous ventilation and no placement of chest tube postoperatively. J Thorac Dis. (2016) 8:2226–32. 10.21037/jtd.2016.08.02 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.He J, Liu J, Zhu C, Dai T, Cai K, Zhang Z, et al. Expert consensus on tubeless video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (Guangzhou). J Thorac Dis. (2019) 11:4101–8. 10.21037/jtd.2019.10.04 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O'Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. (2018) 169:467–73. 10.7326/M18-0850 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Guerrera F, Costardi L, Rosboch GL, Lyberis P, Ceraolo E, Solidoro P, et al. Awake or intubated surgery in diagnosis of interstitial lung diseases? A prospective study. ERJ Open Res. (2021) 7:00630–2020. 10.1183/23120541.00630-2020 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Pompeo E, Mineo TC. Awake pulmonary metastasectomy. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. (2007) 133:960–6. 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2006.09.078 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Pompeo E, Tacconi F, Frasca L, Mineo TC. Awake thoracoscopic bullaplasty. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. (2011) 39:1012–7. 10.1016/j.ejcts.2010.09.029 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Pompeo E, Rogliani P, Tacconi F, Dauri M, Saltini C, Novelli G, et al. Randomized comparison of awake nonresectional versus nonawake resectional lung volume reduction surgery. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. (2012) 143:47–54, 54.e1. 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2011.09.050 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.AlGhamdi ZM, Lynhiavu L, Moon YK, Moon MH, Ahn S, Kim Y, et al. Comparison of non-intubated versus intubated video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy for lung cancer. J Thorac Dis. (2018) 10:4236–43. 10.21037/jtd.2018.06.163 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Ambrogi V, Sellitri F, Perroni G, Schillaci O, Mineo TC. Uniportal video-assisted thoracic surgery colorectal lung metastasectomy in non-intubated anesthesia. J Thorac Dis. (2017) 9:254–61. 10.21037/jtd.2017.02.40 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Caviezel C, Schuepbach R, Grande B, Opitz I, Zalunardo M, Weder W, et al. Establishing a non-intubated thoracoscopic surgery programme for bilateral uniportal sympathectomy. Swiss Med Wkly. (2019) 149:w20064. 10.4414/smw.2019.20064 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Chen JS, Cheng YJ, Hung MH, Tseng YD, Chen KC, Lee YC. Nonintubated thoracoscopic lobectomy for lung cancer. Ann Surg. (2011) 254:1038–43. 10.1097/SLA.0b013e31822ed19b [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Chen J, Du Q, Lin M, Lin J, Li X, Lai F, et al. Transareolar single-port needlescopic thoracic sympathectomy under intravenous anesthesia without intubation: a randomized controlled trial. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. (2016) 26:958–64. 10.1089/lap.2015.0470 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Chen JF, Lin M, Chen P, Quan D, Li X, Lai FC, et al. Nonintubated needlescopic thoracic sympathectomy for primary palmar hyperhidrosis: a randomized controlled trial. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. (2016) 26:328–33. 10.1097/SLE.0000000000000287 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Furák J, Paróczai D, Burián K, Szabó Z, Zombori T. Oncological advantage of nonintubated thoracic surgery: better compliance of adjuvant treatment after lung lobectomy. Thorac Cancer. (2020) 11:3309–16. 10.1111/1759-7714.13672 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Guo Z, Yin W, Pan H, Zhang X, Xu X, Shao W, et al. Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery segmentectomy by non-intubated or intubated anesthesia: a comparative analysis of short-term outcome. J Thorac Dis. (2016) 8:359–68. 10.21037/jtd.2016.02.50 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Guo Z, Yin W, Zhang X, Xu X, Liu H, Shao W, et al. Primary spontaneous pneumothorax: simultaneous treatment by bilateral non-intubated videothoracoscopy. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. (2016) 23:196–201. 10.1093/icvts/ivw123 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Hsiao CH, Chen KC, Chen JS. Modified single-port non-intubated video-assisted thoracoscopic decortication in high-risk parapneumonic empyema patients. Surg Endosc. (2017) 31:1719–27. 10.1007/s00464-016-5164-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Huang W, Deng H, Lan Y, Wang R, Ge F, Huo Z, et al. Spontaneous ventilation video-assisted thoracic surgery for mediastinal tumor resection in patients with pulmonary function deficiency. Ann Transl Med. (2020) 8:1444. 10.21037/atm-20-1652 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Hwang J, Shin JS, Son JH, Min TJ. Non-intubated thoracoscopic bullectomy under sedation is safe and comfortable in the perioperative period. J Thorac Dis. (2018) 10:1703–10. 10.21037/jtd.2018.02.10 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Irons JF, Miles LF, Joshi KR, Klein AA, Scarci M, Solli P, et al. Intubated versus nonintubated general anesthesia for video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery-a case-control study. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. (2017) 31:411–7. 10.1053/j.jvca.2016.07.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Jung J, Kim DH, Son J, Lee SK, Son BS. Comparative study between local anesthesia and general anesthesia in the treatment of primary spontaneous pneumothorax. Ann Transl Med. (2019) 7:553. 10.21037/atm.2019.09.89 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Ke HH, Hsu PK, Tsou MY, Ting CK. Nonintubated video-assisted thoracic surgery with high-flow oxygen therapy shorten hospital stay. J Chin Med Assoc. (2020) 83:943–9. 10.1097/JCMA.0000000000000408 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Kocatürk C, Kutluk AC, Usluer O, Onat S, Çinar HU, Yanik F, et al. Comparison of awake and intubated video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery in the diagnosis of pleural diseases: a prospective multicenter randomized trial. Turk Gogus Kalp Damar Cerrahisi Derg. (2019) 27:550–6. 10.5606/tgkdc.dergisi.2019.18214 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Lan L, Cen Y, Zhang C, Qiu Y, Ouyang B. A propensity score-matched analysis for non-intubated thoracic surgery. Med Sci Monit. (2018) 24:8081–7. 10.12659/MSM.910605 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Liang H, Liu J, Wu S, Zhang Y, Liu H, Yang H, et al. Nonintubated spontaneous ventilation offers better short-term outcome for mediastinal tumor surgery. Ann Thorac Surg. (2019) 108:1045–51. 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2019.04.052 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Liu HY, Hsu HH, Tsai TM, Chiang XH, Lu TP, Chang CH, et al. Nonintubated versus intubated uniportal thoracoscopic segmentectomy for lung tumors. Ann Thorac Surg. (2021) 111:1182–9. 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2020.06.058 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Liu J, Cui F, Li S, Chen H, Shao W, Liang L, et al. Nonintubated video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery under epidural anesthesia compared with conventional anesthetic option: a randomized control study. Surg Innov. (2015) 22:123–30. 10.1177/1553350614531662 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Liu J, Cui F, Pompeo E, Gonzalez-Rivas D, Chen H, Yin W, et al. The impact of non-intubated versus intubated anaesthesia on early outcomes of video-assisted thoracoscopic anatomical resection in non-small-cell lung cancer: a propensity score matching analysis. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. (2016) 50:920–5. 10.1093/ejcts/ezw160 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Liu Z, Yang R, Sun Y. Nonintubated uniportal thoracoscopic thymectomy with laryngeal mask. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. (2020) 68:450–6. 10.1055/s-0039-1696950 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Mao Y, Liang H, Deng S, Qiu Y, Zhou Y, Chen H, et al. Non-intubated video-assisted thoracic surgery for subxiphoid anterior mediastinal tumor resection. Ann Transl Med. (2021) 9:403. 10.21037/atm-20-6125 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Metelmann I, Broschewitz J, Pietsch UC, Huschak G, Eichfeld U, Bercker S, et al. Procedural times in early non-intubated VATS program - a propensity score analysis. BMC Anesthesiol. (2021) 21:44. 10.1186/s12871-021-01270-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Mineo TC, Sellitri F, Tacconi F, Ambrogi V. Quality of life and outcomes after nonintubated versus intubated video-thoracoscopic pleurodesis for malignant pleural effusion: comparison by a case-matched study. J Palliat Med. (2014) 17:761–8. 10.1089/jpm.2013.0617 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Wang ML, How CH, Hung MH, Huang HH, Hsu HH, Cheng YJ, et al. Long-term outcomes after nonintubated versus intubated thoracoscopic lobectomy for clinical stage I non-small cell lung cancer: a propensity-matched analysis. J Formos Med Assoc. (2021) 120:1949–56. 10.1016/j.jfma.2021.04.018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Akopov A, Egorov V, Deynega I, Ionov P. Awake video-assisted thoracic surgery in acute infectious pulmonary destruction. Ann Transl Med. (2015) 3:100. 10.3978/j.issn.2305-5839.2015.04.16 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Ambrogi MC, Fanucchi O, Korasidis S, Davini F, Gemignani R, Guarracino F, et al. Nonintubated thoracoscopic pulmonary nodule resection under spontaneous breathing anesthesia with laryngeal mask. Innovations. (2014) 9:276–80. 10.1097/imi.0000000000000075 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Chen J, Lin J, Tu Y, Lin M, Li X, Lai F. Nonintubated transareolar endoscopic thoracic sympathectomy with a flexible endoscope: experience of 58 cases. Ann Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. (2016) 22:12–9. 10.5761/atcs.oa.15-00241 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Chen JF, Lin JB, Tu YR, Lin M, Li X, Lai FC, et al. Nonintubated transareolar single-port thoracic sympathicotomy with a needle scope in a series of 85 male patients. Surg Endosc. (2016) 30:3447–53. 10.1007/s00464-015-4628-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Chen KC, Cheng YJ, Hung MH, Tseng YD, Chen JS. Nonintubated thoracoscopic surgery using regional anesthesia and vagal block and targeted sedation. J Thorac Dis. (2014) 6:31–6. 10.1097/00003643-201406001-00238 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Cherchi R, Grimaldi G, Pinna-Susnik M, Riva L, Sarais S, Santoru M, et al. Retrospective outcomes analysis of 99 consecutive uniportal awake lung biopsies: a real standard of care? J Thorac Dis. (2020) 12:4717–30. 10.21037/jtd-20-1551 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Hung MH, Chan KC, Liu YJ, Hsu HH, Chen KC, Cheng YJ, et al. Nonintubated thoracoscopic lobectomy for lung cancer using epidural anesthesia and intercostal blockade: a retrospective cohort study of 238 cases. Medicine. (2015) 94:e727. 10.1097/MD.0000000000000727 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Hung MH, Cheng YJ, Chan KC, Han SC, Chen KC, Hsu HH, et al. Nonintubated uniportal thoracoscopic surgery for peripheral lung nodules. Ann Thorac Surg. (2014) 98:1998–2003. 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2014.07.036 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Hung MH, Hsu HH, Chan KC, Chen KC, Yie JC, Cheng YJ, et al. Non-intubated thoracoscopic surgery using internal intercostal nerve block, vagal block and targeted sedation. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. (2014) 46:620–5. 10.1093/ejcts/ezu054 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Hung MH, Hsu HH, Chen KC, Chan KC, Cheng YJ, Chen JS. Nonintubated thoracoscopic anatomical segmentectomy for lung tumors. Ann Thorac Surg. (2013) 96:1209–15. 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2013.05.065 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Hung WT, Hung MH, Wang ML, Cheng YJ, Hsu HH, Chen JS. Nonintubated thoracoscopic surgery for lung tumor: seven years' experience with 1,025 patients. Ann Thorac Surg. (2019) 107:1607–12. 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2019.01.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Li H, Huang D, Qiao K, Wang Z, Xu S. Feasibility of non-intubated anesthesia and regional block for thoracoscopic surgery under spontaneous respiration: a prospective cohort study. Braz J Med Biol Res. (2020) 53:e8645. 10.1590/1414-431x20198645 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Liu CY, Hsu PK, Chien HC, Hsieh CC, Ting CK, Tsou MY. Tubeless single-port thoracoscopic sublobar resection: indication and safety. J Thorac Dis. (2018) 10:3729–37. 10.21037/jtd.2018.05.119 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Liu HY, Chiang XH, Hung MH, Wang ML, Lin MW, Cheng YJ, et al. Nonintubated uniportal thoracoscopic segmentectomy for lung cancer. J Formos Med Assoc. (2020) 119:1396–404. 10.1016/j.jfma.2020.03.021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Liu Z, Yang R, Sun Y. Tubeless uniportal thoracoscopic wedge resection with modified air leak test and chest tube drainage. BMC Surg. (2020) 20:301. 10.1186/s12893-020-00910-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Moon Y, AlGhamdi ZM, Jeon J, Hwang W, Kim Y, Sung SW. Non-intubated thoracoscopic surgery: initial experience at a single center. J Thorac Dis. (2018) 10:3490–8. 10.21037/jtd.2018.05.147 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Starke H, Zinne N, Leffler A, Zardo P, Karsten J. Developing a minimally-invasive anaesthesiological approach to non-intubated uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery in minor and major thoracic surgery. J Thorac Dis. (2020) 12:7202–17. 10.21037/jtd-20-2122 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Tseng YD, Cheng YJ, Hung MH, Chen KC, Chen JS. Nonintubated needlescopic video-assisted thoracic surgery for management of peripheral lung nodules. Ann Thorac Surg. (2012) 93:1049–54. 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2012.01.062 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Wang ML, Galvez C, Chen JS, Navarro-Martinez J, Bolufer S, Hung MH, et al. Non-intubated single-incision video-assisted thoracic surgery: a two-center cohort of 188 patients. J Thorac Dis. (2017) 9:2587–98. 10.21037/jtd.2017.08.96 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Wang ML, Hung MH, Chen JS, Hsu HH, Cheng YJ. Nasal high-flow oxygen therapy improves arterial oxygenation during one-lung ventilation in non-intubated thoracoscopic surgery. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. (2018) 53:1001–6. 10.1093/ejcts/ezx450 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Pompeo E, Sorge R, Akopov A, Congregado M, Grodzki T. Non-intubated thoracic surgery-a survey from the European Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Ann Transl Med. (2015) 3:37. 10.3978/j.issn.2305-5839.2015.01.34 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Al-Shather H, El-Boghdadly K, Pawa A. Awake laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy under paravertebral and superficial cervical plexus blockade. Anaesthesia. (2015) 70:1210–1. 10.1111/anae.13220 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Kanawati S, Fawal H, Maaliki H, Naja ZM. Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy in five awake obese patients using paravertebral and superficial cervical plexus blockade. Anaesthesia. (2015) 70:993–5. 10.1111/anae.13037 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Rosboch GL, Ceraolo E, Balzani E, Piccioni F, Brazzi L. The anesthesiologist perspective. Video-Assisted Thoracic Surgery. (2021) 6. 10.21037/vats-21-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Bedetti B, Patrini D, Bertolaccini L, Crisci R, Solli P, Schmidt J, et al. Uniportal non-intubated thoracic surgery. J Vis Surg. (2018) 4:18. 10.21037/jovs.2017.12.09 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Du X, Mao S, Cui J, Ma J, Zhang G, Zheng Y, et al. Use of laryngeal mask airway for non-endotracheal intubated anesthesia for patients with pectus excavatum undergoing thoracoscopic nuss procedure. J Thorac Dis. (2016) 8:2061–7. 10.21037/jtd.2016.07.52 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Deng HY, Zhu ZJ, Wang YC, Wang WP, Ni PZ, Chen LQ. Non-intubated video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery under loco-regional anaesthesia for thoracic surgery: a meta-analysis. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. (2016) 23:31–40. 10.1093/icvts/ivw055 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Yu MG, Jing R, Mo YJ, Lin F, Du XK, Ge WY, et al. Non-intubated anesthesia in patients undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE. (2019) 14:e0224737. 10.1371/journal.pone.0224737 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Xue W, Duan G, Zhang X, Zhang H, Zhao Q, Xin Z, et al. Comparison of non-intubated and intubated video-assisted thoracoscopic surgeries of major pulmonary resections for lung cancer-a meta-analysis. World J Surg Oncol. (2021) 19:87. 10.1186/s12957-021-02181-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Zhang K, Chen H-G, Wu W-B, Li X-J, Wu Y-H, Xu J-N, et al. Non-intubated video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery vs. intubated video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery for thoracic disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 1,684 cases. J Thorac Dis. (2019) 11:3556–68. 10.21037/jtd.2019.07.48 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Gerbershagen HJ, Aduckathil S, van Wijck AJ, Peelen LM, Kalkman CJ, Meissner W. Pain intensity on the first day after surgery: a prospective cohort study comparing 179 surgical procedures. Anesthesiology. (2013) 118:934–44. 10.1097/ALN.0b013e31828866b3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Wang H, Li S, Liang N, Liu W, Liu H, Liu H. Postoperative pain experiences in Chinese adult patients after thoracotomy and video-assisted thoracic surgery. J Clin Nurs. (2017) 26:2744–54. 10.1111/jocn.13789 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Click here for additional data file. (8.8KB, xlsx)

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Articles from Frontiers in Surgery are provided here courtesy of Frontiers Media SA

RESOURCES