Kawaguchi Y, Kawanishi H, Mujais S, Topley N, Oreopoulos D G
Perit Dial Int. 2000;20 Suppl 4:S43-55.
Current definitions of encapsulating peritoneal sclerosis are practical and clinically relevant. It is important to adhere to a more uniform use of the proper terminology, and it is the recommendation of the authors that EPS be adopted as the more appropriate term. The best literal definition of EPS is based on clinical-pathologic criteria. Differentiation of EPS from the general category of ultrafiltration failure is required. Further, better appreciation of the diverse pathways that can lead to the same final common clinical-pathologic picture should not be overshadowed by the requirement of uniform terminology. Incidence and prevalence of the syndrome have been defined in some large populations and a few single-center experiences. The former show an incidence of less than 1%, while higher percentages are reported in the latter. The reported increased incidence with duration on therapy requires validation. The epidemiology of the syndrome offers limited insight into its pathogenesis. A list of factors, both dialysis-related and non dialysis-related. has been accumulated. Except in a few categories where agents are clearly related to the development of EPS, the majority of the listed factors for dialysis-related BPS remain, at best, associations and at worst, simple conjecture. The same limitations that plague the issue of etiology apply in the area of pathogenesis. More basic, focused work is required. The diagnosis of EPS remains based on clinical suspicion confirmed with, primarily, radiologic findings. Pathologic confirmation is obtained in cases that come to surgery for management or for catheter removal. Radiologic studies are precise enough for confirmation, but none have been evaluated for early diagnosis for possible early intervention or prevention. Studies based on transport characteristics or effluent dialysate constituents are not useful for EPS. At present, there are no reliable predictive tests for BPS that can be used in individual patients. Therapy of BPS is based on anecdotal evidence. The possible variable etiologies and probable distinct pathways leading to the syndrome may make a uniform therapeutic approach unlikely. Further, the limited number of cases and the sporadic pattern of occurrences make therapeutic trials not readily feasible. This is distinct from the case of ultrafiltration failure, where significant advances in mechanism elucidation and rationale-based interventions have been made.
目前关于包裹性腹膜硬化症的定义具有实用性且与临床相关。坚持更统一地使用恰当术语很重要,作者建议采用EPS作为更合适的术语。EPS的最佳字面定义基于临床病理标准。需要将EPS与超滤失败的一般类别区分开来。此外,不应因统一术语的要求而忽视对可导致相同最终常见临床病理表现的多种途径的更好理解。该综合征的发病率和患病率已在一些大群体和少数单中心经验中得到界定。前者显示发病率低于1%,而后者报告的百分比更高。所报道的随着治疗时间延长发病率增加的情况需要验证。该综合征的流行病学对其发病机制的洞察有限。已经积累了一系列与透析相关和非透析相关的因素。除了少数几类因素与EPS的发生明显相关外,所列出的大多数与透析相关的BPS因素充其量只是关联,最坏的情况则只是简单推测。困扰病因问题的同样局限性也适用于发病机制领域。需要开展更基础、更有针对性的工作。EPS的诊断仍然基于临床怀疑,并主要通过影像学检查结果来证实。对于因管理或拔除导管而进行手术的病例可获得病理证实。影像学研究对于确诊足够精确,但尚未对其进行早期诊断评估以进行可能的早期干预或预防。基于转运特征或流出液透析液成分的研究对EPS无用。目前,对于个体患者没有可用于BPS的可靠预测性检测方法。BPS的治疗基于轶事证据。导致该综合征的可能不同病因和可能不同的途径可能使得不太可能采用统一的治疗方法。此外,病例数量有限且发病呈散发性,使得治疗试验不太容易可行。这与超滤失败的情况不同,在超滤失败方面,在机制阐明和基于理论的干预方面已经取得了重大进展。