This is a large clinical study that compares two different types of anesthesia for patients undergoing a specific kind of minimally invasive lung surgery (thoracoscopic sublobar resection) to remove small, early-stage lung nodules.
The study aims to find out if a newer anesthesia method, known as "non-intubated anesthesia" (where patients breathe on their own with the help of a laryngeal mask airway and nerve blocks for pain control), is as safe as the traditional "intubated anesthesia" (which uses a breathing tube and a machine to breathe for the patient).
The main goals of the study are, in order:
1. Safety First: To confirm that the non-intubated method does not lead to more lung complications within 30 days after surgery compared to the traditional method.
2. Effectiveness: If it is proven safe, the study will then check if patients receiving the non-intubated anesthesia have a better quality of recovery in the first 24 hours after surgery (e.g., less pain, fewer side effects like a sore throat, and a faster return to normal activities).
Approximately 1600 patients from multiple hospitals will be randomly assigned (like flipping a coin) to receive one of the two anesthesia methods. Neither the patients nor the surgeons will be told which group the patient is in when assessing the main outcomes after surgery, to ensure the results are fair and unbiased.
The results of this study will provide high-quality evidence to help doctors and patients choose the best and most comfortable anesthesia option for this type of lung surgery.