ObjectiveTo compare the short-term outcomes between Ivor Lewis esophagectomy and McKeown esophagectomy under thoracoscopy and laparoscopy for thoracic middle-lower esophageal carcinoma and to investigate the optimal approach.MethodsThe relevant literatures (from database foundation to March 2016) comparing minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy and minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy were searched through PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, CBM, CNKI, Wanfang Data and VIP. RevMan 5.3 software was used for data analysis.ResultsA total of 870 patients in 5 studies were reviewed and data were pooled for analysis. The score of Newcastle Ottawa for the literatures was 7-8 points. The results showed that compared with the McKeown group, Ivor Lewis group had shorter operation time (WMD=–34.67, 95% CI –53.70 to –15.65, P=0.000 4), less recurrent laryngeal nerve injuries (OR=0.23, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.44, P<0.000 01), anastomotic leakage (OR=0.24, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.41, P<0.000 01), anastomotic stenosis (OR=0.30, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.55, P=0.000 01), and pulmonary complications ( OR=0.25, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.43, P<0.000 01). There was no significant difference between the two groups in intraoperative blood loss, postoperative stay, hospitalization cost and chylothorax incidence. The McKeown group was associated with much more lymph nodes dissection (WMD=–1.16, 95% CI –2.00 to –0.31,P=0.007) than the Ivor Lewis group.ConclusionCompared with McKeown esophagectomy combined with thoracoscopy and laparoscopy, Ivor Lewis esophagectomy combined with thoracoscopy and laparoscopy has some advantages for thoracic middle-lower esophageal carcinoma, but a greater number of lymph nodes are dissected in McKeown procedure.
