Abstract
Objective
The aim of this study was to compare the safety feasibility and safety feasibility of non-intubated (NIVATS) and intubated video-assisted thoracoscopic surgeries (IVATS) during major pulmonary resections.
Methods
A meta-analysis of eight studies was conducted to compare the real effects of two lobectomy or segmentectomy approaches during major pulmonary resections.
Results
Results showed that the patients using NIVATS had a greatly shorter hospital stay and chest-tube placement time (weighted mean difference (WMD): − 1.04 days; 95% CI − 1.50 to − 0.58; P < 0.01) WMD − 0.71 days; 95% confidence interval (CI), − 1.08 to − 0.34; P < 0.01, respectively) while compared to those with IVATS. There were no significant differences in postoperative complication rate, surgical duration, and the number of dissected lymph nodes. However, through the analysis of highly selected patients with lung cancer in early stage, the rate of postoperative complication in the NIVATS group was lower than that in the IVATS group [odds ratio (OR) 0.44; 95% CI 0.21–0.92; P = 0.03, I2 = 0%].
Conclusions
Although the comparable postoperative complication rate was observed for major thoracic surgery in two surgical procedures, the NIVATS method could significantly shorten the hospitalized stay and chest-tube placement time compared with IVATS. Therefore, for highly selected patients, NIVATS is regarded as a safe and technically feasible procedure for major thoracic surgery. The assessment of the safety and feasibility for patients undergoing NIVATS needs further multi-center prospective clinical trials.
Uniportal Versus Multiportal Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Lobectomy for Lung Cancer: An Updated Meta-analysis
