Non-intubated video-assisted thoracic surgery (NI-VATS) combines the advantages of a non-intubated surgery with the benefits of a minimally invasive approach. First, NI-VATS is performed in the case of fragile patients when general anesthesia and/or orotracheal intubation can be foreseen as inconvenient. However, NI-VATS indications have been increasingly extended to different patient conditions, considering the increasingly assessed safety and feasibility of the procedure. Currently, the NI-VATS approach is used worldwide for different thoracic surgery procedures, including the management of malignant pleural effusion, surgical treatment of empyema, anatomical and non-anatomical lung resection, and other indications. In fact, this approach has shown to be less impactful than VATS under general anesthesia, allowing for shortened hospitalization and faster recovery after surgery. Besides, NI-VATS is associated with fewer pulmonary complications, less respiratory distress, and a mild systemic inflammatory reaction. For these reasons, this approach should be considered not only in patients with poor cardiac or respiratory function (general functional reserve), but also in other eligible conditions.
We explored the anesthetic and surgical aspects of such an approach, including the management of analgesia, cough reflex, depth of sedation, and intraoperative technical issues to put this approach in perspective.
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.
Pulmonary resection by video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery with single-lung ventilation has become a standardized modality over the last decades. With the aim to reduce surgical stress during operation procedures, some have adopted a uniportal approach in pulmonary resection as an alternative to multiportal VATS. The ERAS program has been widely spread to achieve even better outcomes. In 2004, Pompeo reported the resection of pulmonary modules by conventional VATS under intravenous anesthesia without endotracheal intubation. Within less than a decade thereafter, complete VATS pulmonary resections under anesthesia without endotracheal intubation had been reported for a range of thoracoscopic procedures. Avoiding tracheal intubation under general anesthesia can reduce the incidence of complications such as intubation-related airway trauma, residual neuromuscular blockade, ventilation-induced lung injury, impaired cardiac performance, and postoperative nausea. Numerous studies can be found especially from Asian countries, focusing on comparison of intubated and non-intubated procedures showing that non-intubated VATS could reduce the rate of postoperative complications, shorten hospital stay and decrease the perioperative mortality rate, indicating that non-intubated VATS is a safe, effective and feasible technique for thoracic disease. However, if we look closely at all studies, it is obvious that there are no significant differences between intubated and non-intubated surgery in terms of the standard procedures and maneuvers. In non-intubated procedures it can be less comfortable for the surgeon to manipulate in the thoracic cavity, but the procedural steps remain the same. All the differences between the intubated and non-intubated operation procedure are found in perioperative management of the patient. The patient is still in deep anesthesia during the procedure and hypecapnia can occur. It is easier to manage this if the patient is intubated. In addition, if a complication occurs during the operation and intubation is required, this can cause an emergent situation, which means that not all patients are suitable for such a procedure, especially those with severe emphysema, obese patients and those with a problematic oropharyngeal configuration-Mallampati score. Moreover, studies on non-intubated thoracic surgery point to shortened hospitalization, faster recovery etc. But there are also studies on intubated uniportal VATS procedures in combination with ERAS protocol showing shortened hospitalization and better outcome for patients. Currently, especially with the use of optical intubation canylas, totally intravenous anesthesia (TIVA), BIS and relaxometer, anesthesia is safe for avoiding airway injury, hypercapnia, and there is minimal risk of residual curarization as well as one of the postoperative lung complications such as microaspiration and atelectasis. In addition, the patient recovers rapidly from anesthesia and can be verticalised and mobilized a couple of hours after the operation. It is desirable to take into consideration what type of patient and what lung disease is suitable for non-intubated technique and what is more convenient for intubation.
Traditionally, intubated general anesthesia with one-lung ventilation is standard in thoracoscopic surgery. However, in recent decades, non-intubated thoracoscopic surgery (NITS) has become an alternative method to minimize the adverse effects of intubated general anesthesia. Non-intubated procedures result in fewer adverse events than tracheal intubation and general anesthesia, such as intubation-related airway injury, ventilation-induced lung injury, prolonged hospital stay, and postoperative nausea and vomiting. Despite these benefits, surgeons must consider the possibility of converting to intubation during NITS as the conversion rate is between 2 and 11%, varying between regions and learning time. The conversion rate is also affected by race, body size, the learning curve, and the surgical team's preferred methods. There are surgical (e.g., significant respiratory movements, uncontrolled bleeding, hindered surgical fields, large tumor sizes, adhesions) and anesthetic (e.g., hypoxemia, hypercapnia, airway spasms) reasons for converting to intubation. When a conversion is deemed necessary by the surgical team, the members should be well-prepared and act rapidly. Anesthesiologists should also feel comfortable intubating patients in the lateral decubitus position with or without bronchoscopic guidance. Patient selection is the key factor for avoiding conversion into an intubated surgery. Patients with an American Society of Anesthesiologists grade 2 or less, a body mass index <25, and less surgical complexity may be good candidates for NITS. Careful monitoring, adequate anesthesia depth, an experienced surgical team, and sufficient preparation can also prevent conversion. Conversion from a non-intubated into intubated thoracic surgery is unwanted but not inevitable. Therefore, NITS can be successful when performed on select patients by a well-prepared and experienced surgical team and is worthy of recommendation owing to its non-invasiveness.
Frontiers in Surgery
Bridging Surgical Oncology and Personalized Medicine: The Role of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Thoracic Surgery