Comparisons of the Safety and Effectiveness of Robot-Assisted vs Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy for Central Renal Angiomyolipomas: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis Study
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online September, 2023
Comparisons of the Safety and Effectiveness of Robot-Assisted vs Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy for Central Renal Angiomyolipomas: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis Study
To compare the safety and effectiveness of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) vs laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) in the treatment of central renal angiomyolipomas (AMLs).
Methods:
We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 103 patients who were treated with either RAPN or LPN for central AMLs between January 2017 and June 2022. Propensity scores were matched according to sex, age, laterality, body mass index, symptoms, diameter of tumor, location of tumor distribution, R.E.N.A.L score, preoperative hemoglobin, preoperative serum creatinine, preoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate, chronic disease, previous abdominal surgery, preoperative selective arterial embolization, American Society of Anesthesiologists scale, and duration of follow-up, and after matching, perioperative and prognostic data of the two groups were compared.
Results:
A total of 57 patients underwent RAPN, and 46 patients underwent LPN. Before matching, there were more complex AMLs in the RAPN group, and R.E.N.A.L scores differed between the two groups (10 vs 9, p < 0.001). After matching, the median warm ischemic time in the RAPN group was significantly shorter than that in the LPN group (21.5 minutes vs 28 minutes, p = 0.034), as well as the median time of postoperative mobilization (1 day vs 2 days, p < 0.001). The other indicators were not significantly different between the groups.
Conclusions:
For central AMLs, both RAPN and LPN were safe and feasible surgical treatments, but RAPN might be associated with shorter warm ischemia time and earlier postoperative mobilization.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
EbleJN. Angiomyolipoma of kidney. Semin Diagn Pathol, 1998; 15(1):21–40.
2.
HatanoT, EgawaS. Renal angiomyolipoma with tuberous sclerosis complex: How it differs from sporadic angiomyolipoma in both management and care. Asian J Surg, 2020; 43(10):967–972; doi: 10.1016/j.asjsur.2019.12.008
RabenouRA, CharlesHW. Differentiation of sporadic versus tuberous sclerosis complex-associated angiomyolipoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2015; 205(2):292–301; doi: 10.2214/AJR.14.14255
5.
LiuX, MaX, LiuQ, et al.Retroperitoneal laparoscopic nephron sparing surgery for large renal angiomyolipoma: Our technique and experience. A case series of 41 patients. Int J Surg, 2018; 54(Pt A):216–221; doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2018.04.043
6.
BhattJR, RichardPO, KimNS, et al.Natural history of renal angiomyolipoma (AML): Most patients with large AMLs >4cm can be offered active surveillance as an initial management strategy. Eur Urol, 2016; 70(1):85–90; doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.01.048
7.
WangC, LiX, PengL, et al.An update on recent developments in rupture of renal angiomyolipoma. Medicine (Baltimore), 2018; 97(16):e0497; doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000010497
8.
MuesAC, PalaciosJM, HaramisG, et al.Contemporary experience in the management of angiomyolipoma. J Endourol, 2010; 24(11):1883–1886; doi: 10.1089/end.2010.0223
9.
ÇalışkanS, GümrükçüG, ÖzsoyE, et al.Renal angiomyolipoma. Rev Assoc Med Bras (1992), 2019; 65(7):977–981; doi: 10.1590/1806-9282.65.7.977
10.
FaddegonS, SoA. Treatment of angiomyolipoma at a tertiary care centre: The decision between surgery and angioembolization. Can Urol Assoc J, 2011; 5(6):E138–E141; doi: 10.5489/cuaj.10028
11.
WangSF, LoWO. Benign neoplasm of kidney: Angiomyolipoma. J Med Ultrasound, 2018; 26(3):119–122; doi: 10.4103/JMU.JMU_48_18
12.
BoorjianSA, FrankI, InmanB, et al.The role of partial nephrectomy for the management of sporadic renal angiomyolipoma. Urology, 2007; 70(6):1064–1068; doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2007.07.045
13.
MsezaneL, ChangA, ShikanovS, et al.Laparoscopic nephron-sparing surgery in the management of angiomyolipoma: A single center experience. J Endourol, 2010; 24(4):583–587; doi: 10.1089/end.2009.0330
14.
GuL, LiuK, ShenD, et al.Comparison of robot-assisted and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for completely endophytic renal tumors: A high-volume center experience. J Endourol, 2020; 34(5):581–587; doi: 10.1089/end.2019.0860
15.
VarmaS, GuptaS, TalwarJ, et al.Renal epithelioid angiomyolipoma: A malignant disease. J Nephrol, 2011; 24(1):18–22; doi: 10.5301/jn.2010.5451
16.
BhayaniSB, AllafME, LinkRE, et al.Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy in patients with neoplasia in a solitary kidney. Urology, 2004; 64(1):35–37; doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2004.03.002
17.
HeidenreichA, HegeleA, VargaZ, et al.Nephron-sparing surgery for renal angiomyolipoma. Eur Urol, 2002; 41(3):267–273; doi: 10.1016/s0302-s2838(02)00015-5
18.
XuB, ZhangQ, JinJ. Laparoscopic aspiration for central renal angiomyolipoma: A novel technique based on single-center initial experience. Urology, 2013; 81(2):313–318; doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2012.09.047
19.
DevoeWB, KercherKW, HopeWW, et al.Hand-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy after 60 cases: Comparison with open partial nephrectomy. Surg Endosc, 2009; 23(5):1075–1080; doi: 10.1007/s00464-008-0135-2
20.
BenwayBM, BhayaniSB, RogersCG, et al.Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: An international experience. Eur Urol, 2010; 57(5):815–820; doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2010.01.011
21.
LinCY, YangCK, OuYC, et al.Long-term outcome of robotic partial nephrectomy for renal angiomyolipoma. Asian J Surg, 2018; 41(2):187–191; doi: 10.1016/j.asjsur.2016.11.003
22.
GillIS, ColomboJRJr., FrankI, et al.Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for hilar tumors. J Urol, 2005; 174(3):850–853; discussion 853–854; doi: 10.1097/01.ju.0000169493.05498.c3
23.
LuoSH, ZengQS, ChenJX, et al.Successful robot-assisted partial nephrectomy for giant renal hilum angiomyolipoma through the retroperitoneal approach: A case report. World J Clin Cases, 2022; 10(12):3886–3892; doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v10.i12.3886
24.
Chan ParkM, ParkS, KimSC, et al.Varying outcomes among patients with large angiomyolipomas according to the treatment method. Urol Int, 2021; 105(7–8):680–686; doi: 10.1159/000515990
25.
XiongY, DengW, ChenR, et al.Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for giant sporadic renal angiomyolipomas of ≥7cm: A propensity score-matched analysis. J Oncol, 2021; 2021:6395876; doi: 10.1155/2021/6395876
26.
HeW, ChenX, JiH, et al.Emergency retroperitoneal laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for ruptured renal angiomyolipomas: A retrospective single-center series of 15 cases. BMC Surg, 2020; 20(1):59; doi: 10.1186/s12893-020-00723-w
27.
CastleSM, GorbatiyV, EkwennaO, et al.Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) therapy for renal angiomyolipoma (AML): An alternative to angio-embolization and nephron-sparing surgery. BJU Int, 2012; 109(3):384–387; doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10376.x
28.
XuB, ZhangZN, LuoC, et al.Comparison of safety and effectiveness between retroperitoneal laparoscopic tumor aspiration and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy in the treatment of renal angiomyolipoma. Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban, 2018; 50(4):700–704.
29.
TakiY, ImaiN, NishiT, et al.Transarterial embolization of a ruptured renal angiomyolipoma. Intern Med, 2018; 57(2):283–284; doi: 10.2169/internalmedicine.9157-17
30.
WürnschimmelC, Di PierroGB, MoschiniM, et al.Robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy vs conventional laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: Functional and surgical outcomes of a prospective single surgeon randomized study. J Endourol, 2020; 34(8):847–855; doi: 10.1089/end.2020.0143
31.
FlumAS, HamouiN, SaidMA, et al.Update on the diagnosis and management of renal angiomyolipoma. J Urol, 2016; 195(4 Pt 1):834–846; doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2015.07.126
32.
KotharyN, SoulenMC, ClarkTW, et al.Renal angiomyolipoma: Long-term results after arterial embolization. J Vasc Interv Radiol, 2005; 16(1):45–50; doi: 10.1097/01.RVI.0000143769.79774.70
33.
SteinerMS, GoldmanSM, FishmanEK, et al.The natural history of renal angiomyolipoma. J Urol, 1993; 150(6):1782–1786; doi: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)35895-0
34.
ZhangS, LinT, LiuG, et al.Comparisons of the safety and effectiveness of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for large angiomyolipomas: A propensity score-matched analysis. Int Urol Nephrol, 2020; 52(9):1675–1682; doi: 10.1007/s11255-020-02441-x
35.
SaoudR, KristofTW, JudgeC, et al.Clinical and pathological features of renal epithelioid angiomyolipoma (PEComa): A single institution series. Urol Oncol, 2022; 40(2):18–24; doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2021.09.010
36.
HarkeNN, DarrC, RadtkeJP, et al.Retroperitoneal versus transperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy: A multicenter matched-pair analysis. Eur Urol Focus, 2021; 7(6):1363–1370; doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2020.08.012
37.
ZargarH, AkcaO, AutorinoR, et al.Ipsilateral renal function preservation after robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN): An objective analysis using mercapto-acetyltriglycine (MAG3) renal scan data and volumetric assessment. BJU Int, 2015; 115(5):787–795; doi: 10.1111/bju.12825
38.
ThompsonRH, LaneBR, LohseCM, et al.Renal function after partial nephrectomy: Effect of warm ischemia relative to quantity and quality of preserved kidney. Urology, 2012; 79(2):356–360; doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2011.10.031
39.
ParekhDJ, WeinbergJM, ErcoleB, et al.Tolerance of the human kidney to isolated controlled ischemia. J Am Soc Nephrol, 2013; 24(3):506–517; doi: 10.1681/ASN.2012080786
40.
KutikovA, UzzoRG. The R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score: A comprehensive standardized system for quantitating renal tumor size, location and depth. J Urol, 2009; 182(3):844–853; doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2009.05.035
41.
PuX, XuZ, LiuJ, et al.[Clinical efficacy of transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for renal tumors with R. E. N. A. L score over 7]. Nan Fang Yi Ke Da Xue Xue Bao, 2014; 34(12):1818–1821.
42.
RoushiasS, VasdevN, GanaiB, et al.Can the R.e.N.a.L nephrometry score preoperatively predict postoperative clinical outcomes in patients undergoing open and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy?. Curr Urol, 2013; 7(2):90–97; doi: 10.1159/000356255
43.
GolanS, JohnsonSC, MauriceMJ, et al.Safety and early effectiveness of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy for large angiomyolipomas. BJU Int, 2017; 119(5):755–760; doi: 10.1111/bju.13747
44.
ChenL, DengW, LuoY, et al.Comparison of robot-assisted and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for renal hilar tumors: Results from a tertiary referral center. J Endourol, 2022; 36(7):941–946; doi: 10.1089/end.2020.0151
45.
MarconiL, DesaiMM, FicarraV, et al.Renal preservation and partial nephrectomy: Patient and surgical factors. Eur Urol Focus, 2016; 2(6):589–600; doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2017.02.012
