ArticleFrontiers in surgery2022
The Anesthesiologist's Perspective Regarding Non-intubated Thoracic Surgery: A Scoping Review.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Long-term oncologic outcomes after non-intubated versus intubated video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery for non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Tubeless uniportal VATS in thoracic surgery - Indications, ERAS pathways, and outcomes: A review.Biomolecules & biomedicine · 2026Review
- 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
- Postoperative pulmonary complications in awake video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery: Our 10-year experience.Turk gogus kalp damar cerrahisi dergisi · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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.
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.