A Retrospective Audit of Thoracic Surgeries Performed in 2024: Analysis of Surgical Approaches and Short-Term Postoperative Outcomes from a Single Tertiary Care Centre

Authors

  •   Khushbu Badami Department of Surgical Oncology, Cancer Institute (Women's Indian Association), Adyar, Chennai – 600036, Tamil Nadu, India;
  •   Arvind Krishnamurthy Department of Surgical Oncology, Cancer Institute (Women's Indian Association), Adyar, Chennai – 600036, Tamil Nadu, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.65129/surgical.v1i3.150

Keywords:

Minimally Invasive, Outcomes, Postoperative Morbidity, Thoracic Surgery

Abstract

Background: Thoracic surgery includes diverse procedures involving the lungs, oesophagus, mediastinum, and chest wall. It has evolved with the increasing use of minimally invasive techniques. However, institutional audits assessing short-term postoperative outcomes remain valuable to monitor surgical performance and patient safety, especially in high-volume tertiary centres. This study audited all thoracic surgeries performed in 2024 at the centres to analyse surgical case- mix and short-term complications. Objective: To analyse the types, approaches, and short-term postoperative outcomes of thoracic surgeries performed in 2024 at a single tertiary-care institution. Methods: A retrospective audit of all thoracic surgeries performed from January to December 2024 was conducted. Data on demographics, surgical procedures, complication rates (graded by Clavien–Dindo classification), and specific postoperative morbidities (e.g., recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy, pleural effusion) were collected and analysed. Results: A total of 78 thoracic procedures were performed in 2024, with esophagectomies (41%) and metastasectomies (33.3%) being the most common. Surgical approaches were mainly minimally invasive approaches, including Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery (VATS) and robotic surgery (76.9%). Postoperative complications were observed in 19 patients (24.4%), with surgical site complications (8.8%) being the most common. Based on the Clavien–Dindo classification, Grade II complications were most frequent (10; 12.8%), while Grade V mortality occurred in one patient (1.3%) of cases, following an esophagectomy due to cardiac complications. Specific complications included 7 cases of wound complications, two cases of Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve (RLN) palsy, 6 pleural effusions, two cases of cardiac arrhythmias and two anastomotic leaks. Conclusion: The complication and mortality rates in this audit align with international benchmarks. The high adoption of minimally invasive approaches likely contributed to favourable outcomes. Continued expansion of minimally invasive and robotic techniques may further improve postoperative morbidity.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

2025-09-30

How to Cite

Badami, K., & Krishnamurthy, A. (2025). A Retrospective Audit of Thoracic Surgeries Performed in 2024: Analysis of Surgical Approaches and Short-Term Postoperative Outcomes from a Single Tertiary Care Centre. Journal of Surgery and Surgical Specialities, 1(3), 81–86. https://doi.org/10.65129/surgical.v1i3.150

Issue

Section

Research Article

References

1. Akhtar NM, Chen D, Zhao Y, et al. Postoperative short-term outcomes of minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy: systematic review and metaanalysis. Thorac Cancer. 2020; 11(6):1465-1475. https:// doi.org/10.1111/1759-7714.13413 PMid:32310341 PMCid:PMC7262946.

2. Kauppila JH, Helminen O, Kytö V, et al. Shortterm outcomes of minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy after neoadjuvant therapy: Metaanalysis. Ann Surg. 2021; 273(4):621-629.

3. Biere SS, Henegouwen MIV, Maas KW, et al. Minimally invasive vs open esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: A multicentre randomized trial (TIME trial). Lancet. 2012; 379:1887-1892. https://doi.org/10.1016/S01406736(12)60516-9 PMid:22552194.

4. Vydia G, Ramaniaiah, Radhakrishnan V, Krishnamurthy A, Arunkumar N. View of battling esophageal cancer in the elderly: A retrospective audit from a tertiary cancer centre in South India. Asian Pac J Cancer Nur. 2025.

5. Park S, Kim DJ, Kim HI, et al. Robotic esophagectomy for cancer: reduced complications and improved outcomes. Ann Thorac Surg. 2020; 109(2):377-384.

6. Cao C, Manganas C, Ang SC, et al. VATS versus open lobectomy: Meta-analysis of 61,000 patients. Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2021; 10(2):115-127.

7. Harris CG, James RS, Tian DH, et al. Uniportal versus multiportal VATS lobectomy: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Innovations. 2020; 15(3):216-225.

8. Pfannschmidt J, Dienemann H. Surgical resection of pulmonary metastases. Lancet Oncol. 2010; 11:259-268.

9. Treasure T, Milošević M, Fiorentino F, et al. Pulmonary metastasectomy for colorectal cancer: Updated systematic review. Thorax. 2021; 76(10):999-1006.

10. Seong YW, Kang CH, Park IK, et al. VATS thymectomy vs open thymectomy: Long-term outcomes. Ann Thorac Surg. 2014; 97:429-435.

11. McCormack PM. Surgical management of chest wall tumors. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2009; 21(1):89-98.

12. Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML, et al. The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications:

Five-year experience. Ann Surg. 2009; 250(2):187-196. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181b13ca2

PMid:19638912.