McKeown or Ivor Lewis minimally invasive esophagectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Abstract

BackgroundMinimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is increasingly accepted in many countries. McKeown esophagectomy and Ivor Lewis esophagectomy are two protocols commonly used for MIE, but which one provides more benefit to the patients remains matter of controversy.MethodsAll records in PubMed, Embase, Medline, The Cochrane Library, Wanfang Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and Chinese VIP Information till May 2019 were systematically retrieved to compare the cohort studies of McKeown esophagectomy and Ivor Lewis esophagectomy. A meta-analysis of the extracted data was performed using the Review Manager 5.3 and Stata 15 software.ResultsThe meta-analysis included 23 cohort studies in which a total of 4,933 patients were enrolled. The results revealed that minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy (MIME) was superior to minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (MILE) in hospital cost, but inferior to it in operating time, length of hospital stay, in-hospital mortality, 30-day mortality, 90-day mortality, anastomotic leakage, anastomotic leakage requiring surgery, anastomotic stenosis, recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) injury, chylothorax, pulmonary complications and total complications. There were no statistical differences between MIME and MILE in blood loss, detected number of lymph nodes, blood transfusion rate, R0 resection rate, re-operation rate, drainage duration, length of the stay in intensive care unit (ICU), 1-year mortality, lung infection, cardiac arrhythmia and delayed gastric emptying.ConclusionsExcept for the cost, MILE is superior to MIME in several aspects, and may represent a better choice for MIE. The results of the present study should be interpreted with caution since the meta-analysis is based on nonrandom cohort studies which may have a selection bias.