A Propensity Score–Matched Analysis of Thoracolaparoscopic vs Open McKeown’s Esophagectomy

Abstract Background The effectiveness and survival benefit of minimally invasive esophagectomy compared to open esophagectomy (OE) remain controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety, efficacy, and oncologic outcomes of McKeown’s total minimally invasive esophagectomy (tMIE) and McKeown’s OE in the treatment of patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Methods A series of 917 consecutive patients (306 OE and 611 tMIE) who underwent McKeown’s esophagectomy for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in the Department of Thoracic Surgery at Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center from January 2011 to December 2016 were evaluated. We performed propensity matching between the tMIE and OE groups on the basis of estimated propensity scores for each patient. Results After propensity-matched analysis, 288 patients were selected from each group. The rate of postoperative complications, such as pneumonia, respiratory insufficiency, cervical anastomotic leakage, and wound infection, in the OE group was significantly higher than that in the tMIE group. Intraoperative blood loss and operative duration were not significantly different between the matched groups, whereas the tMIE group had a shorter length of intensive care unit stay and postoperative hospital stay than the OE group. The R0 resection rate and the number of lymph nodes harvested were not significantly different between groups. There was no significant difference in median overall survival between the 2 groups after matching. Conclusions McKeown’s tMIE was shown to be a safe and effective procedure with long-term survival comparable to that of OE for the patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.