Comparison of awake and intubated video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery in the diagnosis of pleural diseases: A prospective multicenter randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to compare the safety and diagnostic accuracy of awake and intubated video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery in the diagnosis of pleural diseases.
METHODS: This prospective randomized study was conducted between October 2016 and April 2018 and included 293 patients (201 males, 92 females; mean age 53.59 years; range, 18 to 90 years) from five medical centers experienced in video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery. The patients were randomized into two groups as awake video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery with sedoanalgesia (non-intubated) and video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery with general anesthesia (intubated). Patients with undiagnosed pleural effusions and pleural pathologies such as nodules and masses were included. Conditions such as pain, agitation, and hypoxia were indications for intubation. The groups were compared in terms of demographic data, postoperative pain, operative time, complications, diagnostic accuracy of the procedures, and cost. All patients completed a follow-up period of at least 12 months for samples that were non-specific, suspicious for malignancy or inadequate.
RESULTS: Awake video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery was performed in 145 and intubated video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery was performed in 148 patients. Pleural disease was unilateral in 83% (243/293) and bilateral in 17% (50/293) of the patients. There was no difference between the groups in terms of presence of comorbidity (p=0.149). One patient in the awake video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery group (0.6%) was converted to general anesthesia due to refractory pain and agitation. As postoperative complications, fluid drainage and pneumonia were observed in one patient in the awake video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery group (0.6%) and fluid drainage was detected in one patient in the video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery group (0.6%). There were no differences in pain intensity measured with visual analog scale at postoperative 4, 8, 12, or 24 hours (p>0.05). Distribution and rates of postoperative pathological diagnoses were also similar (p=0.171). Both operative cost and total hospital cost were lower in the awake video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery group (p<0.001, p=0.001).
CONCLUSION: Our study showed that awake video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery is safe, has similar reliability and diagnostic accuracy compared to video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery performed under general anesthesia, and is less costly. Awake video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery can be the first method of choice in all patients, not only in those with comorbidities.