Objective To explore the clinical value of the lung protective ventilation strategy in thoracoscopic and laparoscopic radical resection of esophageal cancer. Methods The prospective study was conducted. The clinicopathological data of 160 patients who underwent thoracoscopic and laparoscopic radical resection of esophageal cancer at the Tumor Hospital Affiliated to Xinjiang Medical University between June 2015 and June 2016 were collected. All the patients undergoing thoracoscopic and laparoscopic radical resection of esophageal cancer were allocated respectively into the experimental group and control group according to the random number table, and intraoperative single-lumen endotracheal tube intubation and continuous CO2 artificial pneumothorax was conducted. Patients in the experimental group received mechanical ventilation using lung protective ventilation strategy. Parameters of mechanical ventilation: tidal volume (VT) 6 mL/kg+ positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) 5 cmH2O (1 cmH2O=0.098 kPa)+ plat pressure (Pplat)≤30 cmH2O+ recruitment maneuver (RM). Patients in the control group received the traditional ventilation (parameters of ventilation: VT=9 mL/kg). Observation indicators: observation points were at 10 minutes after tracheal intubation in general anesthesia (T1), at 1 hour after one-lung ventilation (T2), at the end of surgery (T3) and at 24 hours postoperatively (T4). (1) Comparison of parameters of respiratory mechanic: peak airway pressure (Ppeak), Pplat and resistance of airway (Raw) . (2) Comparison of the blood gas analysis: arterial oxygen partial pressure (PaO2), arterial carbon dioxide partial pressure (PaCO2) and pH. (3) Comparison of inflammatory reaction indexes: serum IL-6, IL-8, TNF-α and C-reactive protein. (4) Comparison of postoperative pulmonary complications: pulmonary infection, pulmonary atelectasis, pulmonary edema, bronchospasm, hypoxemia and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Measurement data with normal distribution were represented as ±s. Comparisons between groups were evaluated with an independent sample t test. Comparisons of count data were done using the chi-square test. Ordinal data were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis test. Repeated measurement data were analyzed by the repeated measures ANOVA. Results All the 160 patients were screened for eligibility, 80 in each group. (1) Comparison of parameters of respiratory mechanic: Ppeak, Pplat and Raw from T1 to T3 were respectively from (18.5±3.4)mmHg (1 mmHg=0.133 kPa) to (22.5±4.6)mmHg, from (15.3±3.6)mmHg to (17.5±2.7)mmHg, from (15.1±1.8)cmH2O/(L·s) to (16.8±2.6)cmH2O/(L·s) in the experimental group and from (17.2±3.7)mmHg to (32.5±4.8)mmHg, from (15.1±3.8)mmHg to (21.5±4.5)mmHg, from (15.6±2.8)cmH2O/(L·s) to (19.5±4.0)cmH2O/(L·s) in the control group, with statistically significant differences in the changing trend between the 2 groups (F=10.35, 12.57, 18.63, P<0.05). (2) Comparison of the blood gas analysis: PaO2 from T1 to T4 was from (505±38)mmHg to (490±34)mmHg in the experimental group and from (523±35)mmHg to (460±43)mmHg in the control group, with a statistically significant difference between 2 groups (F=11.56, P<0.05). (3) Comparison of inflammatory reaction indexes: serum IL-6, IL-8, TNF-α and C-reactive protein from T1 to T4 were respectively from (157±35)ng/L to (213±48)ng/L, from (19.3±2.5)ng/L to (21.2±4.3)ng/L, from (158±35)ng/L to (293±46)ng/L, from (7.5±3.5)mg/L to (47.7±5.8)mg/L in the experimental group and from (162±33)ng/L to (326±45)ng/L, from (16.2±3.5)ng/L to (34.2±4.8)ng/L, from (156±35)ng/L to (393±48)ng/L, from (8.6±2.8)mg/L to (78.2±6.5)mg/L in the control group, with statistically significant differences in the changing trend between 2 groups (F=8.85, 10.45, 13.27, 19.68, P<0.05). (4) Comparison of postoperative pulmonary complica-tions: incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications in the experimental group and control group was respectively 17.5%(14/80) and 31.3%(25/80). Pulmonary infection, pulmonary atelectasis, pulmonary edema, bronchospasm, hypoxemia and ARDS were respectively detected in 7, 6, 5, 6, 10, 0 patients in the experimental group and 16, 13, 13, 14, 20, 2 patients in the control group, showing a statistically significant difference between 2 groups (χ2 =4.10, P<0.05). Conclusion Lung protective ventilation strategy can reduce Ppeak and Raw and improve oxygenation in thoracoscopic and laparoscopic radical resection of esophageal cancer, meanwhile, it can also reduce intra- and post-operative inflammatory reaction and postoperative complications. Key words: Esophageal neoplasms; Lung protective ventilation strategy; Pulmonary protection