Minimally invasive McKeown's vs open oesophagectomy for cancer: A meta-analysis

The effectiveness of minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIO) compared to open oesophagectomy (OO) remains controversial. Various techniques for performing MIO are currently used, but the evidence for them is lacking. The objective of this meta-analysis was to compare the safety, efficacy and oncological outcomes of McKeown's minimally invasive oesophagectomy (McKeown's-MIO) to OO.

PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library databases were searched up to December 2016 for relevant articles comparing McKeown's-MIO to OO. As no randomised control trials (RCTs) currently exist, only cohort and case control studies were included. Fixed or random-effects models were used to calculate summary odds ratios (ORs) or relative risks (RRs) for binary outcomes, and hazard ratios (HRs) for time-to-event outcomes. Heterogeneity among studies were evaluated using I² statistics.

Four studies, which consisted a total of 573 patients, were included in the meta-analysis. In comparison to patients undergoing OO, those who were treated with McKeown's-MIO had a reduced incidence of pneumonia and total respiratory complications, however, there were no statistically significant differences for other measures of safety such as RLN palsy and anastomotic leak. In terms of efficacy data, MIO had significantly less blood loss and a shorter duration of hospital stay but a longer operating time. Lymph node retrieval trended towards favouring McKeown's-MIO, but was not statistically significant. There was insufficient data to report on other oncological outcomes.

McKeown's-MIO is a safe and effective procedure that has comparable outcomes to OO. However, RCTs with large sample sizes are needed to confirm these results.