McKeown Versus Ivor‐Lewis Esophagectomy for Patients with a History of Total Pharyngolaryngectomy: A Comparison Study

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundOncologic esophagectomy in patients with a history of total pharyngolaryngectomy (TPL) is challenging. There are two different esophagectomy procedures: total esophagectomy with cervical anastomosis (McKeown) and subtotal esophagectomy with intrathoracic anastomosis (Ivor‐Lewis). Differences in outcomes between McKeown and Ivor‐Lewis esophagectomies for patients with this history remain unclear.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed 36 patients with a history of TPL who underwent oncologic esophagectomy and compared the clinical outcomes between the procedures.ResultsTwelve (33.3%) and 24 (66.7%) patients underwent McKeown and Ivor‐Lewis esophagectomies, respectively. McKeown esophagectomy was more frequently performed for the supracarinal tumors (P = 0.002). Other baseline characteristics, including the history of radiation therapy, were comparable between the groups. Postoperatively, the incidences of pneumonia and anastomotic leakage were higher in the McKeown group than in the Ivor‐Lewis group (P = 0.029 and P < 0.001, respectively). Neither tracheal necrosis nor remnant esophageal necrosis was observed. The overall and recurrence‐free survival rates were comparable between the groups (P = 0.494 and P = 0.813, respectively).ConclusionsWhen performing esophagectomy for patients with a history of TPL, if it is oncologically acceptable and technically available, Ivor‐Lewis is preferable over McKeown esophagectomy for avoiding postoperative complications.