Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2023 May 2;7(4):553-564.
doi: 10.1002/ags3.12685. eCollection 2023 Jul.

What is the best reconstruction procedure after esophagectomy? A meta-analysis comparing posterior mediastinal and retrosternal approaches

Eisuke Booka  1 , Hiroya Takeuchi  1 , Yoshifumi Morita  1 , Yoshihiro Hiramatsu  1   2 , Hirotoshi Kikuchi  1
Affiliations
Review

What is the best reconstruction procedure after esophagectomy? A meta-analysis comparing posterior mediastinal and retrosternal approaches

Eisuke Booka et al. Ann Gastroenterol Surg. .

Abstract

Thoracic esophagectomy is a particularly invasive and complicated surgical procedure, with a reconstruction of the gastrointestinal tract, such as the stomach, jejunum, or colon. The posterior mediastinal, retrosternal, and subcutaneous routes are the three possible esophageal reconstruction routes. Each route has advantages and disadvantages, and the optimal reconstruction route after esophagectomy remains controversial. Additionally, the best anastomotic techniques after esophagectomy in terms of location (Ivor Lewis or McKeown) and suturing (manual or mechanical) are debatable. Our meta-analysis investigating postoperative complications after esophagectomy between the posterior mediastinal and retrosternal routes revealed that the posterior mediastinal route was associated with a significantly lower anastomotic leakage rate than the retrosternal route (odds ratio = 0.78, 95% confidence interval: 0.70-0.87, p < 0.0001). Conversely, pulmonary complications (odds ratio = 0.80, 95% confidence interval: 0.58-1.11, p = 0.19) and mortality between the posterior mediastinal and retrosternal routes (odds ratio = 0.79, 95% confidence interval: 0.56-1.12, p = 0.19) were not significantly different. However, the incidence of pneumonia may be lower when using the retrosternal route rather than the posterior mediastinal route for performing minimally invasive esophagectomy. The McKeown procedure is oncologically necessary for tumors located above the carina to dissect upper mediastinal and cervical lymph nodes; however, the Ivor Lewis procedure offers perioperative and oncological safety for tumors located under the carina. An individualized treatment strategy for selecting the optimal reconstruction procedure can be proposed in future studies based on oncological and patient risk factors considering mid- to long-term quality of life.

Keywords: Ivor Lewis; McKeown; esophageal reconstruction; esophagectomy; posterior mediastinal route; retrosternal route; subcutaneous route.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Authors declare no conflict of interests for this article. Hiroya Takeuchi is an editorial board member of Annals of Gastroenterological Surgery.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Illustration comparing the retrosternal and posterior mediastinal routes.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Forest plots comparing the effects of reconstruction routes after esophagectomy on anastomotic leakage (A), pulmonary complications (B), and mortality (C). The Mantel–Haenszel random‐effect model (B) or fixed‐effect model (A, C) was used for the meta‐analysis. Odds ratios are shown with 95% confidence intervals. PM, posterior mediastinal; RS, retrosternal.
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3
Illustration comparing the Ivor Lewis and McKeown procedures.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71(3):209–49. - PubMed
    1. Watanabe M, Toh Y, Ishihara R, Kono K, Matsubara H, Miyazaki T, et al. Comprehensive registry of esophageal cancer in Japan, 2015. Esophagus. 2023;20(1):1–28. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ando N, Ozawa S, Kitagawa Y, Shinozawa Y, Kitajima M. Improvement in the results of surgical treatment of advanced squamous esophageal carcinoma during 15 consecutive years. Ann Surg. 2000;232(2):225–32. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Booka E, Kikuchi H, Hiramatsu Y, Takeuchi H. The impact of infectious complications after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer on cancer prognosis and treatment strategy. J Clin Med. 2021;10(19):4614. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Booka E, Takeuchi H, Kikuchi H, Hiramatsu Y, Kamiya K, Kawakubo H, et al. Recent advances in thoracoscopic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. Asian J Endosc Surg. 2019;12(1):19–29. - PubMed