Surgical outcomes of two different reconstruction routes for esophagectomy in esophageal cancer patients: a meta-analysis

Abstract

To evaluate the effects of two different reconstruction routes (the posterior mediastinal route (PR) and the retrosternal route (RR)) on the surgical outcomes of patients after esophagectomy for esophageal carcinoma. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Scopus were searched from database inception to March 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and case-control trials on the surgical outcomes of patients undergoing esophagectomy via one of the two routes were included. RevMan 5.3 software was used for the meta-analysis. In total, 19 studies were included, 8 were RCTs and 11 were case-control studies. The meta-analysis showed that among the case-control trials, the PR had reduced rates of anastomotic leakage [odds ratio (OR) = 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.43, 0.74), P < 0.01]. In addition, it had reduced rates of anastomotic stenosis [OR = 0.42, 95% CI (0.30, 0.59), P < 0.01] and pulmonary complications [OR = 0.63, 95% CI (0.47, 0.84), P < 0.01]. However, there was no significant difference in cardiac complications [RCTs, relative risk (RR) = 0.57, 95% CI (0.29, 1.11), P = 0.10; case-control trials, OR = 1.06, 95% CI (0.70, 1.62), P = 0.78] or postoperative mortality [RCTs, RR = 0.47, 95% CI (0.19, 1.16), P = 0.10; case-control trials, OR = 0.68, 95% CI (0.32, 1.44), P = 0.31]. Compared with the RR, the PR had reduced rates of anastomotic leakage, anastomotic stenosis and pulmonary complications.

Keywords: case–control trial; esophagectomy; meta-analysis; posterior mediastinal route; randomized controlled trial; retrosternal route.