Scholarlink

Background <p>Non-intubated uniportal video-assisted thoracic surgery (NI-UVATS) has been introduced to further minimize invasiveness in lung resection. However, its feasibility and safety in complex procedures such as sleeve lobectomy remain underexplored. This study aimed to compare perioperative and early oncological outcomes between non-intubated and intubated UVATS for sleeve lobectomy.</p> Methods <p>We conducted a retrospective cohort study at a single center from March 2019 to July 2021, including patients undergoing UVATS sleeve lobectomy. Patients received either non-intubated spontaneous ventilation or intubated general anesthesia with a double-lumen tube. Perioperative outcomes, including operative time, blood loss, complications, and pathological results, were compared between groups.</p> Results <p>A total of 65 patients were analyzed (18 NI-UVATS, 47 I-UVATS). Baseline characteristics were similar, except for a slightly higher baseline PaCO2 (41.29 ± 3.16 vs. 39.15 ± 3.40&#xa0;mmHg, <i>p</i> = 0.025) and lower serum albumin (36.22 ± 3.87 vs. 39.09 ± 3.57&#xa0;g/L, <i>p</i> = 0.006) in the NI group. There were no conversions to intubation or thoracotomy in the NI group (0/18). Operative time (118.3 ± 19.2 vs. 107.3 ± 34.7&#xa0;min, <i>p</i> = 0.180), estimated blood loss (median 50&#xa0;mL in both, <i>p</i> = 0.310), and lymph node yield (13.2 ± 5.9 vs. 14.3 ± 8.5, <i>p</i> = 0.632) were comparable. Overall postoperative complication rates were similar (27.8% vs. 25.5%, <i>p</i> = 0.289), with prolonged air leak being the most common. No anastomotic complications or 90-day mortality occurred in either cohort. All surgical resections achieved an R0 margin.</p> Conclusions <p>In this cohort, NI-UVATS sleeve lobectomy was associated with comparable perioperative and pathological outcomes to the intubated approach in selected patients. This technique offers a less invasive anesthetic alternative without compromising surgical quality, supporting its consideration within enhanced recovery pathways for thoracic surgery.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Surgical techniques and outcome analysis of non-intubated uniportal VATS sleeve lobectomy: a cohort study

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年3月27日

查看全文
  • Jichen Qu,
  • Lei Jiang

摘要

Background

Non-intubated uniportal video-assisted thoracic surgery (NI-UVATS) has been introduced to further minimize invasiveness in lung resection. However, its feasibility and safety in complex procedures such as sleeve lobectomy remain underexplored. This study aimed to compare perioperative and early oncological outcomes between non-intubated and intubated UVATS for sleeve lobectomy.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study at a single center from March 2019 to July 2021, including patients undergoing UVATS sleeve lobectomy. Patients received either non-intubated spontaneous ventilation or intubated general anesthesia with a double-lumen tube. Perioperative outcomes, including operative time, blood loss, complications, and pathological results, were compared between groups.

Results

A total of 65 patients were analyzed (18 NI-UVATS, 47 I-UVATS). Baseline characteristics were similar, except for a slightly higher baseline PaCO2 (41.29 ± 3.16 vs. 39.15 ± 3.40 mmHg, p = 0.025) and lower serum albumin (36.22 ± 3.87 vs. 39.09 ± 3.57 g/L, p = 0.006) in the NI group. There were no conversions to intubation or thoracotomy in the NI group (0/18). Operative time (118.3 ± 19.2 vs. 107.3 ± 34.7 min, p = 0.180), estimated blood loss (median 50 mL in both, p = 0.310), and lymph node yield (13.2 ± 5.9 vs. 14.3 ± 8.5, p = 0.632) were comparable. Overall postoperative complication rates were similar (27.8% vs. 25.5%, p = 0.289), with prolonged air leak being the most common. No anastomotic complications or 90-day mortality occurred in either cohort. All surgical resections achieved an R0 margin.

Conclusions

In this cohort, NI-UVATS sleeve lobectomy was associated with comparable perioperative and pathological outcomes to the intubated approach in selected patients. This technique offers a less invasive anesthetic alternative without compromising surgical quality, supporting its consideration within enhanced recovery pathways for thoracic surgery.