M. Ghallab’s research while affiliated with Hôpital Paul-Brousse – Hôpitaux universitaires Paris-Sud and other places

Despite the increasing widespread adoption and experience in minimally invasive liver resections (MILR), open conversion occurs not uncommonly even with minor resections and as been reported to be associated with inferior outcomes. We aimed to identify risk factors for and outcomes of open conversion in patients undergoing minor hepatectomies. We also studied the impact of approach (laparoscopic or robotic) on outcomes. This is a post-hoc analysis of 20,019 patients who underwent RLR and LLR across 50 international centers between 2004–2020. Risk factors for and perioperative outcomes of open conversion were analysed. Multivariate and propensity score-matched analysis were performed to control for confounding factors. Finally, 10,541 patients undergoing either laparoscopic (LLR; 89.1%) or robotic (RLR; 10.9%) minor liver resections (wedge resections, segmentectomies) were included. Multivariate analysis identified LLR, earlier period of MILR, malignant pathology, cirrhosis, portal hypertension, previous abdominal surgery, larger tumor size, and posterosuperior location as significant independent predictors of open conversion. The most common reason for conversion was technical issues (44.7%), followed by bleeding (27.2%), and oncological reasons (22.3%). After propensity score matching (PSM) of baseline characteristics, patients requiring open conversion had poorer outcomes compared with successful MILR cases as evidenced by longer operative times, more blood loss, higher requirement for perioperative transfusion, longer duration of hospitalization and higher morbidity, reoperation, and 90-day mortality rates. Multiple risk factors were associated with conversion of MILR even for minor hepatectomies, and open conversion was associated with significantly poorer perioperative outcomes.

Objective: This study aims at establishing benchmark values for best achievable outcomes following open major anatomic hepatectomy for liver tumors of all dignities. Background: Outcomes after open major hepatectomies vary widely lacking reference values for comparisons among centers, indications, types of resections, and minimally invasive procedures. Methods: A standard benchmark methodology was used covering consecutive patients, who underwent open major anatomic hepatectomy from 44 high-volume liver centers from 5 continents over a five-year period (2016-2020). Benchmark cases were low-risk non-cirrhotic patients without significant co-morbidities treated in high-volume centers (≥30 major liver resections/year). Benchmark values were set at the 75th percentile of median values of all centers. Minimum follow-up period was 1 year in each patient. Results: Of 8044 patients, 2908 (36%) qualified as benchmark (low risk) cases. Benchmark cutoffs for all indications include R0 resection ≥78%; liver failure (grade B/C) ≤10%; bile leak (grade B/C) ≤18%; complications ≥grade 3 and CCI® ≤46% and ≤9 at 3 months, respectively. Benchmark values differed significantly between malignant and benign conditions so that reference values must be adjusted accordingly. Extended right hepatectomy (H1,4-8 or H4-8) disclosed higher cutoff for liver failure, while extended left (H1-5,8 or H2-5,8) were associated with higher cutoffs for bile leaks, but had superior oncologic outcomes, when compared to formal left hepatectomy (H1-4 or H2-4). The minimal follow up for a conclusive outcome evaluation following open anatomic major resection must be 3 months. Conclusion: These new benchmark cut-offs for open major hepatectomy provide a powerful tool to convincingly evaluate other approaches including parenchymal-sparing procedures, laparoscopic/robotic approaches, and alternative treatments, such as ablation therapy, irradiation or novel chemotherapy regimens.

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.