Objective: Search the evidence available regarding nonintubated anatomical segmentectomies and discuss about outcomes.Background: Nonintubated thoracic surgery has evolved since initial "rescue procedures" for highrisk patients under awake anesthesia, until sedative nonintubated resections including anatomical segmentectomies. Nonetheless, very few experienced centers in Asia have collected most of this short caseload worldwide, thus reflecting the difficult advance in this very specific minimally-invasive procedure. In fact, the evidence about nonintubated segmentectomies suggests only little benefits in terms of postoperative recovery (chest tube duration, hospital stay).
Methods:We review comparative studies, randomized trials, systematic reviews and meta-analysis about nonintubated segmentectomies since its first report. We focused in some controversial aspects and which the conclusions should be.Conclusions: Evidence regarding the potential benefit of nonintubated segmentectomies is really poor nowadays due to very few studies reported from just highly-experienced centers. The evidence points to a better postoperative recovery in terms of chest tube duration and hospital stay, but these advantages are limited by non-randomized design and methodological biases. Nonetheless the standard with general anesthesia and orotracheal intubation is highly safe in the low-risk cohort of patients strictly selected for nonintubated segmentectomies, so it seems that the expected advantages of this anesthetic method have not been reached or at least not been assessed, especially those regarding respiratory complications and stress biomarkers. Efforts should be made in order to clarify the concepts and the targeted population, homogenize the anesthetic methods, design randomized trials assessing the variables where the expected benefits can be measured, and state conclusion according to these outcomes.