[Short-term efficacy comparison between Ivor-Lewis approach and McKeown approach in minimally invasive esophagectomy].

OBJECTIVE

To compare the perioperative complications between Ivor-Lewis approach and McKeown approach in minimally invasive esophagectomy and gastric tube reconstruction for the treatment of middle and lower thoracic esophageal cancer.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of clinical data was performed on 288 patients with middle and lower thoracic esophageal cancer who underwent completely minimally invasive esophagectomy by one surgical team in Fujian Medical University Union Hospital from December 2010 to March 2014. Among the 288 patients, 103 patients underwent combined laparoscopic and thoracoscopic esophagectomy and intrathoracic esophagogastric anastomosis using a transoral anvil(Orvil)(Ivor-Lewis group, 2-incision) and 185 patients underwent combined laparoscopic and thoracoscopic esophagectomy and cervical anastomosis(McKeown group, 3-incision). Patients were stratified by surgical approach and perioperative outcomes were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

There were no statistical differences between two groups in intra-operative blood loss, conversion to open, extubation time, time to resume oral intake, postoperative hospital stay, the median number of lymph nodes resected. The operation time of Ivor-Lewis group was significantly shorter than that of McKeown group [(283.4±32.0) min vs. (303.6±43.7) min, P=0.003). The hospital cost of Ivor-Lewis group was significantly higher than that of McKeown group [(76 492±18 553) yuan vs. (68 923±17 331) yuan, P<0.01]. There were no statistical differences between two groups in chylothorax, delayed gastric emptying, atrial fibrillation, postoperative bleeding, admission to ICU, short-term postoperative mortality (P>0.05). The total postoperative complication morbidity of Ivor-Lewis group was significantly lower than that of McKeown group(16.5% vs. 31.4%, P<0.01). Ivor-Lewis group had lower pulmonary complication(8.7% vs. 25.9%, P<0.01), anastomotic leakage(1.9% vs. 13.0%, P<0.01), anastomotic stricture (0% vs. 4.9%, P<0.05), recurrent laryngeal nerve injury(1.0% vs. 7.0%, P<0.05).

CONCLUSION

Ivor-Lewis approach is associated with less postoperative complications, but higher cost as compared to McKeown approach in the treatment of middle and lower thoracic esophageal cancer.