Comparison of Ivor Lewis esophagectomy and Sweet esophagectomy for the treatment of middle-lower esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

backgroundFor cancer of the middle and/or lower segment of thoracic esophagus, the Ivor Lewis esophagectomy is the mainstream standard surgery, whereas the Sweet procedure is widely used in China. As no consensus has been reached about the choice of different thoracic approaches, we designed this retrospective study to investigate and compare oncological benefits of the two surgical approaches.

methodsAfter propensity score matching, 150 patients who underwent the Sweet or Ivor Lewis esophagectomy from August 2003 to December 2009 in the Beijing Cancer Hospital were reviewed. We compared the postoperative recovery, nutritional parameters, and survival of the two different surgical approaches.

resultsThe 5-year overall survival (OS) rate for the whole group was 48.5%, and the 10-year OS rate was 35.6%. The Ivor Lewis group had a longer operation time, longer duration of chest tube drainage, and a larger volume of total thoracic drainage. No significant differences were found between the two groups in terms of the duration of systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), length of postoperative hospital stay, duration of postoperative nasogastric tube use, incidence of major complications, and nutritional status after the esophagectomy. The OS rates were similar in both groups.

conclusionsThe Sweet and Ivor Lewis esophagectomy are both safe and effective. A change of the surgical incision may not be the best way to increase survival, and the choice of surgical procedure should depend on the preference of the thoracic surgeon to secure the safety of the operation.