Idir Ouzaid, Pierre-Etienne Gabriel, Byron Lee, Gauthier Delporte, Philippe Puech, Laurent Lemaitre, Evanguelos Xylinas, Arnauld Villers, Georges-Pascal Haber
{"title":"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。","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":"{\"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}","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
摘要
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。
Arterial Embolization versus Robotic Partial Nephrectomy for the Treatment of Renal Angiomyolipomas.
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.