ArticleBMC anesthesiology2021
Procedural times in early non-intubated VATS program - a propensity score analysis.
Article in BMC anesthesiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Short-term and long-term outcomes of non-tracheal intubation anesthesia in thoracoscopic lobectomy for lung cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Molecular and clinical oncology · 2026Article
- Complete Tubeless video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery for pulmonary nodules: association with faster recovery, less pain, and shorter hospital stay.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Superior recovery and efficiency with laryngeal mask airway compared to endotracheal intubation in minimally invasive repair of pectus excavatum: a retrospective analysis.BMC anesthesiology · 2025Article
- Prospective in-depth analysis of anaesthetic management of spontaneous ventilation VATS for lung cancer resection: a matched pairs comparison to intubated VATS.BMC anesthesiology · 2025Article
- Minimally invasive esophagectomy with non-invasive ventilation by laryngeal mask-assisted anesthesia for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: case report.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- Thoracic surgery in the non-intubated spontaneously breathing patient.Respiratory research · 2022Review
- The Anesthesiologist's Perspective Regarding Non-intubated Thoracic Surgery: A Scoping Review.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNon-intubated video-assisted thoracic surgery (NiVATS) has been introduced to surgical medicine in order to reduce the invasiveness of anesthetic procedures and avoid adverse effects of intubation and one-lung ventilation (OLV). The aim of this study is to determine the time effectiveness of a NiVATS program compared to conventional OLV.
methodsThis retrospective analysis included all patients in Leipzig University Hospital that needed minor VATS surgery between November 2016 and October 2019 constituting a NiVATS (n = 67) and an OLV (n = 36) group. Perioperative data was matched via propensity score analysis, identifying two comparable groups with 23 patients. Matched pairs were compared via t-Test.
resultsPatients in NiVATS and OLV group show no significant differences other than the type of surgical procedure performed. Wedge resection was performed significantly more often under NiVATS conditions than with OLV (p = 0,043). Recovery time was significantly reduced by 7 min (p = 0,000) in the NiVATS group. There was no significant difference in the time for induction of anesthesia, duration of surgical procedure or overall procedural time.
conclusionsRecovery time was significantly shorter in NiVATS, but this effect disappeared when extrapolated to total procedural time. Even during the implementation phase of NiVATS programs, no extension of procedural times occurs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.