Intraoperative motive for incomplete resection in primary retroperitoneal sarcoma.

INTRODUCTION: Surgical resection is the current standard of care for retroperitoneal sarcoma (RPS). Recent data suggests that up to 5% of patient have incomplete (R2) resection. The exact reason why patients scheduled for surgery with a curative intent to treat ended up with an R2 resection is largely unknown. AIM OF THE STUDY: To identify intraoperative findings responsible for incomplete (R2) resection in primary RPS. METHODS: All records of consecutive patients scheduled for a non-metastatic primary RPS surgery between 1995 and 2020 in a tertiary care sarcoma centre were retrospective analyzed. RESULTS: Among the 347 patients scheduled for surgery, 13 (3.7%) had an incomplete (R2) resection. The reasons for incomplete surgery were intraoperative finding of vascular involvement of great vessels in 5 patients, previously undetected peritoneal metastases in 5 patients, invasion of contralateral kidney/ureter in 2 patients and the need to preserve both kidneys in 1 patient because of his past medical history. Among these patients, 3 had a laparotomy without resection and 10 had a partial resection (i.e. debulking surgery). Severe postoperative complications occurred in 5 patients. The median length of stay in hospital was 19days. After a median follow-up of 12months, the median survival of patients after incomplete resection was 18months. The 1-y, 5-y and 8-y overall survival (OS) for these patients were 46%, 14%, and 7%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Incomplete (R2) resection for a primary RPS surgery is rare in specialized sarcoma center. The next steps should be to identify the preoperative criteria that lead to this accurate selection and to define the best practice in front of a peroperative discovery of an unresectable RPS. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Augmented reality in liver surgery.

INTRODUCTION: During an operation, augmented reality (AR) enables surgeons to enrich their vision of the operating field by means of digital imagery, particularly as regards tumors and anatomical structures. While in some specialties, this type of technology is routinely ustilized, in liver surgery due to the complexity of modeling organ deformities in real time, its applications remain limited. At present, numerous teams are attempting to find a solution applicable to current practice, the objective being to overcome difficulties of intraoperative navigation in an opaque organ. OBJECTIVE: To identify, itemize and analyze series reporting AR techniques tested in liver surgery, the objectives being to establish a state of the art and to provide indications of perspectives for the future. METHODS: In compliance with the PRISMA guidelines and availing ourselves of the PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases, we identified English-language articles published between January 2020 and January 2022 corresponding to the following keywords: augmented reality, hepatic surgery, liver and hepatectomy. RESULTS: Initially, 102 titles, studies and summaries were preselected. Twenty-eight corresponding to the inclusion criteria were included, reporting on 183patients operated with the help of AR by laparotomy (n=31) or laparoscopy (n=152). Several techniques of acquisition and visualization were reported. Anatomical precision was the main assessment criterion in 19 articles, with values ranging from 3mm to 14mm, followed by time of acquisition and clinical feasibility. CONCLUSION: While several AR technologies are presently being developed, due to insufficient anatomical precision their clinical applications have remained limited. That much said, numerous teams are currently working toward their optimization, and it is highly likely that in the short term, the application of AR in liver surgery will have become more frequent and effective. As for its clinical impact, notably in oncology, it remains to be assessed.