Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41376926›Full record

ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2025

Comparison of short-term outcomes between non-intubated and intubated video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery: a propensity score matching analysis.

Weixiang Lu, Hongsheng Deng, Qing Ai, Ze Wang, Jianxing He, Wenlong Shao, Long Jiang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Weixiang Lu *Department of Thoracic Surgery and Oncology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, State Key Laboratory of Respiratory Disease & National Clinical Research Center for Respiratory Disease, Guangzhou, China.
Hongsheng Deng *Department of Thoracic Surgery and Oncology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, State Key Laboratory of Respiratory Disease & National Clinical Research Center for Respiratory Disease, Guangzhou, China.
Qing Ai *Department of Thoracic Surgery and Oncology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, State Key Laboratory of Respiratory Disease & National Clinical Research Center for Respiratory Disease, Guangzhou, China.
Ze WangDepartment of Thoracic Surgery and Oncology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, State Key Laboratory of Respiratory Disease & National Clinical Research Center for Respiratory Disease, Guangzhou, China.
Jianxing HeDepartment of Thoracic Surgery and Oncology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, State Key Laboratory of Respiratory Disease & National Clinical Research Center for Respiratory Disease, Guangzhou, China.
Wenlong ShaoDepartment of Thoracic Surgery and Oncology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, State Key Laboratory of Respiratory Disease & National Clinical Research Center for Respiratory Disease, Guangzhou, China.
Long JiangDepartment of Thoracic Surgery and Oncology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, State Key Laboratory of Respiratory Disease & National Clinical Research Center for Respiratory Disease, Guangzhou, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: While video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) has revolutionized thoracic interventions, the morbidity associated with general anesthesia and endotracheal intubation persists. In recent years, non-intubated VATS (NIVATS) has emerged as an alternative approach. However, large-scale, multi-center studies comparing NIVATS with intubated VATS (IVATS) remain lacking. Therefore, this study aims to systematically evaluate the feasibility, safety, and clinical advantages of NIVATS by comparing it to IVATS. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 4,537 patients who underwent VATS at the Department of Thoracic Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, between January 2011 and December 2015. Surgical procedures were categorized as minor [pleural/pulmonary/mediastinal biopsies, peripheral wedge resections, thymectomies, and lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS)] or major (anatomical lung resections and airway reconstructions). Patients were stratified by anesthesia protocol: 960 NIVATS (pleural/pulmonary biopsies, peripheral wedge resections, thymectomies, LVRS) and 3,577 IVATS (anatomic resections, airway reconstructions). To minimize selection bias arising from non-randomized grouping, propensity score matching (PSM) was applied in a 1:1 ratio to match patients from both groups. Primary endpoints included operative metrics and recovery parameters. Results: A total of 4,537 VATS patients were included, with 960 in the NIVATS group and 3,577 in the IVATS group. After PSM, 686 matched pairs were analyzed (442 minor procedures: 221 NIVATS/221 IVATS; 244 major procedures: 122 NIVATS/122 IVATS). NIVATS was associated with shorter operative time (minor: 65.3±17.8 Conclusions: This large-scale analysis establishes NIVATS as a safe and effective alternative to conventional IVATS across both minor and major thoracic procedures. The demonstrated advantages, such as reduced operative time, less intraoperative blood loss, and shorter hospital stay, position NIVATS as a transformative approach in minimally invasive thoracic surgery, warranting consideration in Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols.

Indexed as

comparison of clinical characteristicsnon-intubated surgeryoperative time and hospital staypropensity score matching (PSM)Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS)

Identifiers

PMID41376926
PMCPMC12688535

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.