Objective To systematically evaluate the short-term efficacy and safety of McKeown and Sweet methods in the treatment of esophageal cancer. Methods PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Wanfang, VIP, CNKI and China General Library of Biomedical Literature were searched for literature on the short-term efficacy and safety of McKeown and Sweet methods in the treatment of esophageal cancer published from the establishment to May 2023. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to evaluate the quality of researches, and meta-analysis was performed using RevMan5.4. Results A total of 9 articles were included, involving 3687 patients including 1019 in the McKeown group and 2668 in the Sweet group. NOS score was 8-9 points. There were no statistical differences in the age, sex or American Joint Committee on Cancer stage between the two groups (P>0.05). Patients in the McKeown group had longer operative time and hospital stay, more intraoperative blood loss, and higher Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group scores than those in the Sweet group (P<0.05). However, the McKeown operation could remove more lymph nodes. In terms of safety, the incidences of pulmonary complications [OR=2.20, 95%CI (1.40, 3.46), P＜0.001] and postoperative anastomotic leakage [OR=2.06, 95%CI (1.45, 2.92), P＜0.001] were higher in the McKeown group than those in the Sweet group. In addition, there were no statistical differences between the two groups in the Karnofsky score, cardiac complications, vocal cord injury or paralysis, chylous leakage, or gastric emptying (P>0.05). Conclusion Compared with McKeown, Sweet method has advantages in operation time, intraoperative blood loss and hospital stay, and had lower incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications and anastomotic leakage. However, McKeown has more lymph node dissection.