Objective: 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.

中文翻译：

---

机器人辅助与腹腔镜肾部分切除术治疗中央肾血管平滑肌脂肪瘤的安全性和有效性的比较：倾向评分匹配分析研究。

目的：比较机器人辅助肾部分切除术（RAPN）与腹腔镜肾部分切除术（LPN）治疗中央肾血管平滑肌脂肪瘤（AML）的安全性和有效性。方法：我们回顾性分析了 2017 年 1 月至 2022 年 6 月期间接受 RAPN 或 LPN 治疗的 103 例中枢性 AML 患者的临床资料。根据性别、年龄、偏侧性、体重指数、症状、肿瘤直径进行倾向评分匹配、肿瘤分布部位、RENAL评分、术前血红蛋白、术前血清肌酐、术前估计肾小球滤过率、慢性病、既往腹部手术史、术前选择性动脉栓塞、美国麻醉医师协会量表、随访时间和匹配后，比较两组围手术期及预后数据。结果：共有 57 例患者接受了 RAPN，46 例患者接受了 LPN。匹配前，RAPN 组存在更复杂的 AML，且两组之间的 RENAL 评分存在差异（10 vs 9，p < 0.001）。匹配后，RAPN 组的中位热缺血时间明显短于 LPN 组（21.5 分钟 vs 28 分钟，p = 0.034），以及术后活动的中位时间（1 天 vs 2 天，p = 0.034）。 < 0.001）。各组之间的其他指标没有显着差异。结论：对于中枢性 AML，RAPN 和 LPN 都是安全可行的手术治疗方法，但 RAPN 可能与较短的热缺血时间和较早的术后活动有关。