Arterial Embolization versus Robotic Partial Nephrectomy for the Treatment of Renal Angiomyolipomas.

IF 4.5 3区 医学 Q1 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Idir Ouzaid, Pierre-Etienne Gabriel, Byron Lee, Gauthier Delporte, Philippe Puech, Laurent Lemaitre, Evanguelos Xylinas, Arnauld Villers, Georges-Pascal Haber
{"title":"Arterial Embolization versus Robotic Partial Nephrectomy for the Treatment of Renal Angiomyolipomas.","authors":"Idir Ouzaid, Pierre-Etienne Gabriel, Byron Lee, Gauthier Delporte, Philippe Puech, Laurent Lemaitre, Evanguelos Xylinas, Arnauld Villers, Georges-Pascal Haber","doi":"10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2025.0163","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the outcomes of robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy (RALPN) and selective arterial embolization (SAE) for the treatment of sporadic renal angiomyolipoma (AML).</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>The outcomes of patients who were managed by RALPN (n = 191) or SAE (n = 51) for sporadic renal AML were matched (2:1) using a propensity score for analyses. The primary endpoint was therapeutic success defined as the absence of secondary treatment. Secondary endpoints were post-operative complications and renal function preservation (loss of eGFR at 6 months). Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to predict factors associated with re-intervention.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Patients baseline characteristics in the matched population (RALP, n=96 vs. SAE, n=48) were balanced. LOS was shorter (mean: 4.2 vs. 3.1 days; p = 0.004) and EBL was lower (327 mL vs. 0 mL, p < 0.0001) in the SAE group. Overall (PN: 15.2% vs. AES: 11.7% p = 0.09) and Clavien-Dindo stratified (p = 0.62) complications were similar in both groups. After a comparable mean follow-up time (33 vs. 40 months, p = 0.63), there was an overall mean loss of eGFR of 7.7±26 mL/min/1.73m2 (p = 0.001). This loss was similar between the two groups (PN: 6.87±26 vs. AES: 11.56±23, p = 0.36). After adjusting for identified confounding factors including tumor size, type of primary intervention (RALPN vs SAE) was the only predictive factor for secondary intervention.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>RALPN was associated with decreased need for secondary treatment with no increase in morbidity compared with SAE.</p>","PeriodicalId":49283,"journal":{"name":"International Braz J Urol","volume":"51 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12539891/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Braz J Urol","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2025.0163","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To compare the outcomes of robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy (RALPN) and selective arterial embolization (SAE) for the treatment of sporadic renal angiomyolipoma (AML).

Patients and methods: The outcomes of patients who were managed by RALPN (n = 191) or SAE (n = 51) for sporadic renal AML were matched (2:1) using a propensity score for analyses. The primary endpoint was therapeutic success defined as the absence of secondary treatment. Secondary endpoints were post-operative complications and renal function preservation (loss of eGFR at 6 months). Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to predict factors associated with re-intervention.

Results: Patients baseline characteristics in the matched population (RALP, n=96 vs. SAE, n=48) were balanced. LOS was shorter (mean: 4.2 vs. 3.1 days; p = 0.004) and EBL was lower (327 mL vs. 0 mL, p < 0.0001) in the SAE group. Overall (PN: 15.2% vs. AES: 11.7% p = 0.09) and Clavien-Dindo stratified (p = 0.62) complications were similar in both groups. After a comparable mean follow-up time (33 vs. 40 months, p = 0.63), there was an overall mean loss of eGFR of 7.7±26 mL/min/1.73m2 (p = 0.001). This loss was similar between the two groups (PN: 6.87±26 vs. AES: 11.56±23, p = 0.36). After adjusting for identified confounding factors including tumor size, type of primary intervention (RALPN vs SAE) was the only predictive factor for secondary intervention.

Conclusion: RALPN was associated with decreased need for secondary treatment with no increase in morbidity compared with SAE.

动脉栓塞与机器人肾部分切除术治疗肾血管平滑肌脂肪瘤的比较。
目的:比较机器人辅助部分肾切除术(RALPN)和选择性动脉栓塞(SAE)治疗散发性肾血管平滑肌脂肪瘤(AML)的效果。患者和方法:采用RALPN (n = 191)或SAE (n = 51)治疗散发性肾性AML的患者的结果使用倾向评分进行匹配(2:1)。主要终点是治疗成功,定义为没有二次治疗。次要终点是术后并发症和肾功能保存(6个月时eGFR丢失)。采用单因素和多因素logistic回归分析预测再干预相关因素。结果:匹配人群中患者的基线特征(RALP, n=96 vs. SAE, n=48)是平衡的。LOS较短(平均4.2天vs. 3.1天;p = 0.004), SAE组EBL较低(327 mL vs. 0 mL, p < 0.0001)。两组总并发症(PN: 15.2% vs AES: 11.7% p = 0.09)和Clavien-Dindo分层并发症(p = 0.62)相似。在相当的平均随访时间(33个月vs 40个月,p = 0.63)后,eGFR的总体平均损失为7.7±26 mL/min/1.73m2 (p = 0.001)。两组之间的损失相似(PN: 6.87±26 vs AES: 11.56±23,p = 0.36)。在调整确定的混杂因素(包括肿瘤大小)后,主要干预类型(RALPN vs SAE)是次要干预的唯一预测因素。结论:与SAE相比,RALPN与降低二次治疗需求相关,且发病率没有增加。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
International Braz J Urol
International Braz J Urol UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
21.60%
发文量
246
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Information not localized
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信