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

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.

FIGURE 1

Illustration comparing the retrosternal and posterior mediastinal routes.

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

Illustration comparing the Ivor Lewis and McKeown procedures.