<p>Esophageal cancer has an overall five-year survival rate of &lt; 20%. The McKeown esophagectomy is invasive and carries a high risk of anastomotic leakage. Robust prospective outcome data comparing non-placement versus placement of a cervical drainage tube during McKeown esophagectomy are lacking. This study aimed to evaluate whether the placement of a cervical drainage tube is useful. In this randomized controlled, noninferiority trial, 106 patients with histologically proven, surgically resectable esophageal carcinoma were randomized to either placement or non-placement of a cervical drainage tube. The primary outcome was the percentage of Clavien–Dindo grade 2 or higher anastomotic leakage. Secondary outcomes included the duration from surgery to oral intake, hospital stay, and type and dose of analgesics used during hospitalization. Fifty-two and 54 patients were randomized to McKeown esophagectomy with non-placement and placement of a cervical drainage tube, respectively. There was no significant difference in anastomotic leakage rates between the non-placement (12/52 [23%]) and placement (13/54 [24%])&#xa0;of drainage tube. However, non-inferiority was not demonstrated (risk difference, -0.100 [-0.17, 0.15]; <i>p</i> = 0.0591). There were no significant differences in the secondary outcome measures. Non-inferiority of nonplacement of a drainage tube around the cervical anastomosis after McKeown esophagectomy to placement of that was not demonstrated. Further large multicenter studies are needed.</p><p><i>Trial registration</i>: Japan Registry of Clinical Trials (identification number jRCT1052180016).</p>