Original Article
McKeown or Ivor Lewis totally minimally invasive esophagectomy for cancer of the esophagus and gastroesophageal junction: systematic review and meta-analysis
Abstract
Background: Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has consistently been associated with improved perioperative outcome and similar oncological safety compared to open esophagectomy. However, it is currently unclear what type of MIE is preferred for patients with resectable esophageal cancer.
Methods: Literature was searched in Medline, Embase and the Cochrane library combining relevant search terms. Articles that included patients undergoing totally minimally invasive esophagectomy (TMIE) or hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy (HMIE) and compared McKeown with Ivor Lewis procedures were included. Studies were excluded if they included >10% of patients undergoing a procedure other than MIE McKeown or MIE Ivor Lewis (i.e., transhiatal resections). The primary outcome parameter was anastomotic leakage. Secondary outcome parameters were: other complications, reinterventions, reoperations, hospital length of stay, ICU length of stay, postoperative mortality, operative time, blood loss, R0 resection rate, lymph nodes examined, quality of life and costs.
Results: Five studies with a total of 1,681 patients undergoing TMIE were included. There were no studies comparing HMIE McKeown versus HMIE Ivor Lewis. There were no randomized controlled trials and all included studies were cohort studies with a moderate risk of bias. No meta-analysis could be performed for R0 resection rate, survival, quality of life and costs because there was insufficient data available for these parameters. The incidence of anastomotic leakage did not differ between the groups [relative risk (RR) =1.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) =0.90–10.38, P=0.14]. TMIE Ivor Lewis was associated with a lower incidence of recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) trauma (RR =6.70, 95% CI =3.09–14.55, P<0.001), a shorter hospital length of stay [standardized mean difference (SMD) =0.17, 95% CI =0.06–0.28, P=0.002] and less blood loss (SMD =0.69, 95% CI =0.25–1.12, P=0.002).
Conclusions: TMIE Ivor Lewis is associated with improved outcome regarding RLN trauma, hospital length of stay and blood loss as compared to TMIE-McKeown, but the incidence of anastomotic leakage is not different. The evidence is limited, of low quality and at risk for bias. A randomized controlled trial is currently being performed in order to demonstrate whether a McKeown or Ivor Lewis procedure should be preferred in patients undergoing MIE.
Methods: Literature was searched in Medline, Embase and the Cochrane library combining relevant search terms. Articles that included patients undergoing totally minimally invasive esophagectomy (TMIE) or hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy (HMIE) and compared McKeown with Ivor Lewis procedures were included. Studies were excluded if they included >10% of patients undergoing a procedure other than MIE McKeown or MIE Ivor Lewis (i.e., transhiatal resections). The primary outcome parameter was anastomotic leakage. Secondary outcome parameters were: other complications, reinterventions, reoperations, hospital length of stay, ICU length of stay, postoperative mortality, operative time, blood loss, R0 resection rate, lymph nodes examined, quality of life and costs.
Results: Five studies with a total of 1,681 patients undergoing TMIE were included. There were no studies comparing HMIE McKeown versus HMIE Ivor Lewis. There were no randomized controlled trials and all included studies were cohort studies with a moderate risk of bias. No meta-analysis could be performed for R0 resection rate, survival, quality of life and costs because there was insufficient data available for these parameters. The incidence of anastomotic leakage did not differ between the groups [relative risk (RR) =1.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) =0.90–10.38, P=0.14]. TMIE Ivor Lewis was associated with a lower incidence of recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) trauma (RR =6.70, 95% CI =3.09–14.55, P<0.001), a shorter hospital length of stay [standardized mean difference (SMD) =0.17, 95% CI =0.06–0.28, P=0.002] and less blood loss (SMD =0.69, 95% CI =0.25–1.12, P=0.002).
Conclusions: TMIE Ivor Lewis is associated with improved outcome regarding RLN trauma, hospital length of stay and blood loss as compared to TMIE-McKeown, but the incidence of anastomotic leakage is not different. The evidence is limited, of low quality and at risk for bias. A randomized controlled trial is currently being performed in order to demonstrate whether a McKeown or Ivor Lewis procedure should be preferred in patients undergoing MIE.
