Retroperitoneale Fibrose: Entwicklung eines Biomarkerprofils zur Diagnostik und Verlaufskontrolle

Genetic and Epidemiological Similarities, and Differences Between Postoperative Intraperitoneal Adhesion Development and Other Benign Fibro-proliferative Disorders

Intraperitoneal adhesions complicate over half of abdominal-pelvic surgeries with immediate, short, and long-term sequelae of major healthcare concern. The pathogenesis of adhesion development is similar to the pathogenesis of wound healing in all tissues, which if unchecked result in production of fibrotic conditions. Given the similarities, we explore the published literature to highlight the similarities in the pathogenesis of intra-abdominal adhesion development (IPAD) and other fibrotic diseases such as keloids, endometriosis, uterine fibroids, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, and pulmonary, intraperitoneal, and retroperitoneal fibrosis. Following a literature search using PubMed database for all relevant English language articles up to November 2020, we reviewed relevant articles addressing the genetic and epidemiological similarities and differences in the pathogenesis and pathobiology of fibrotic diseases. We found genetic and epidemiological similarities and differences between the pathobiology of postoperative IPAD and other diseases that involve altered fibroblast-derived cells. We also found several genes and single nucleotide polymorphisms that are up- or downregulated and whose products directly or indirectly increase the propensity for postoperative adhesion development and other fibrotic diseases. An understanding of the similarities in pathophysiology of adhesion development and other fibrotic diseases contributes to a greater understanding of IPAD and these disease processes. At a very fundamental level, blocking changes in the expression or function of genes necessary for the transformation of normal to altered fibroblasts may curtail adhesion formation and other fibrotic disease since this is a prerequisite for their development. Similarly, applying measures to induce apoptosis of altered fibroblast may do the same; however, apoptosis should be at a desired level to simultaneously ameliorate development of fibrotic diseases while allowing for normal healing. Scientists may use such information to develop pharmacologic interventions for those most at risk for developing these fibrotic conditions.

[Retroperitoneal fibrosis in adults: Diagnostic approach based on a retrospective multicenter study on 32 cases]

INTRODUCTION

Retroperitoneal fibrosis is a rare disease, typically with an insidious and various clinical course. The peak incidence is seen in patients 40 to 60 years of age and mostly in man. The characteristic finding in this disease is a periaortic fibrous mass that often surrounds the ureters. The diagnostic approach remains uncodified. We aimed to determine the different clinical, radiological and biological aspects of retroperitoneal fibrosis.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Retrospective multicenter study of 32 retroperitoneal fibrosis cases hospitalized between 1999 and 2014 in the Internal Medicine Department and Urology Department in the university hospital center Sahloul Sousse.

RESULTS

There were 24 men and 8 women with a mean age of 58 years. The lumbar pain is the most common clinical signs (53.1%). An inflammatory syndrome and renal failure were the most common biological signs. The diagnosis was suspected on data from the abdominal ultrasound and confirmed by pelvic CT scan that showed a periaortic fibrous mass that often surrounds the ureters. Histological analysis of a surgical biopsy specimen was performed in only eight cases.

CONCLUSION

The most common mode of presentation of retroperitoneal fibrosis remains lumbar pain with renal failure and a high sedimentation rate. Although abdominal ultrasound may contribute to the general evaluation of patients with retroperitoneal fibrosis, CT-scanner is the preferred imaging method. The imaging capability of magnetic resonance and the TEP-scan may facilitate assessment of disease extent.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4.