A review of the current treatment methods for retroperitoneal fibrosis with obstructive uropathy

IF 1.6 Q3 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY BJUI compass Pub Date : 2024-05-12 DOI:10.1002/bco2.371
Charles Carey, Gerard Gurumurthy, Richard Napier-Hemy, Bachar Zelhof
{"title":"A review of the current treatment methods for retroperitoneal fibrosis with obstructive uropathy","authors":"Charles Carey,&nbsp;Gerard Gurumurthy,&nbsp;Richard Napier-Hemy,&nbsp;Bachar Zelhof","doi":"10.1002/bco2.371","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction and aims</h3>\n \n <p>Retroperitoneal fibrosis (RPF) is a fibroinflammatory disease in which patients may suffer obstructive uropathy (OU). The optimum treatment strategy for RPF with secondary OU is currently unclear, and the aim of this literature review is to assess the methods used to treat this patient cohort.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Medline, Embase, Cinahl, the Cochrane Library and PubMed were systematically searched to find studies assessing treatment outcomes in this patient cohort. After reviewing the studies' titles, abstracts and full texts, 12 were found that matched our search aims. Data from these publications were analysed and reported.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The demographic and symptomatic features of patients across the 12 studies were representative of the general RPF population. No randomised control trials (RCTs) were found, and just one study formally compared outcomes between patients who underwent different treatment strategies. Many of the studies concluded that using medical and surgical methods in combination led to positive outcomes; whereas, others found positive outcomes following a variety of regimens. Many studies also highlighted, however, that significant minorities required further treatment after initial therapy. Conclusions regarding optimum treatment methods were limited as most publications did not formally compare outcomes following different strategies and had an observational study design.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Although positive outcomes were commonly seen following medical, surgical and a combination of treatments, the literature currently lacks research formally comparing outcomes after assigning specific treatment protocols to groups of RPF patients. More research is therefore required to determine how to best manage RPF leading to secondary OU.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":72420,"journal":{"name":"BJUI compass","volume":"5 8","pages":"721-731"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/bco2.371","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BJUI compass","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bco2.371","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction and aims

Retroperitoneal fibrosis (RPF) is a fibroinflammatory disease in which patients may suffer obstructive uropathy (OU). The optimum treatment strategy for RPF with secondary OU is currently unclear, and the aim of this literature review is to assess the methods used to treat this patient cohort.

Methods

Medline, Embase, Cinahl, the Cochrane Library and PubMed were systematically searched to find studies assessing treatment outcomes in this patient cohort. After reviewing the studies' titles, abstracts and full texts, 12 were found that matched our search aims. Data from these publications were analysed and reported.

Results

The demographic and symptomatic features of patients across the 12 studies were representative of the general RPF population. No randomised control trials (RCTs) were found, and just one study formally compared outcomes between patients who underwent different treatment strategies. Many of the studies concluded that using medical and surgical methods in combination led to positive outcomes; whereas, others found positive outcomes following a variety of regimens. Many studies also highlighted, however, that significant minorities required further treatment after initial therapy. Conclusions regarding optimum treatment methods were limited as most publications did not formally compare outcomes following different strategies and had an observational study design.

Conclusion

Although positive outcomes were commonly seen following medical, surgical and a combination of treatments, the literature currently lacks research formally comparing outcomes after assigning specific treatment protocols to groups of RPF patients. More research is therefore required to determine how to best manage RPF leading to secondary OU.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
腹膜后纤维化伴梗阻性尿病的现有治疗方法综述
腹膜后纤维化(RPF)是一种纤维炎性疾病,患者可能会出现梗阻性尿病(OU)。我们系统地检索了 Medline、Embase、Cinahl、Cochrane 图书馆和 PubMed,以找到评估该患者群治疗效果的研究。在对研究的标题、摘要和全文进行审查后,发现有 12 项研究符合我们的搜索目的。我们对这些出版物中的数据进行了分析和报告。这 12 项研究中患者的人口统计学特征和症状特征在一般 RPF 患者中具有代表性。没有发现随机对照试验(RCT),仅有一项研究对接受不同治疗策略的患者的疗效进行了正式比较。许多研究得出结论认为,联合使用药物和手术方法可取得积极疗效;而其他研究则发现,采用多种治疗方案均可取得积极疗效。不过,许多研究也强调,相当一部分患者在接受初步治疗后还需要进一步治疗。关于最佳治疗方法的结论是有限的,因为大多数出版物都没有正式比较不同策略的治疗效果,而且采用的是观察性研究设计。虽然药物治疗、手术治疗和综合治疗通常都能取得积极的疗效,但目前还缺乏正式比较将特定治疗方案分配给各组 RPF 患者后的疗效的研究。因此,需要进行更多的研究,以确定如何对导致二次 OU 的 RPF 进行最佳管理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Issue Information Reliability of mpMRI in diagnosing cancer prostate following intravesical BCG for bladder cancer Understanding the long-term impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer outcomes: 12-Month follow-up data from the international, prospective COVIDSurg Cancer study Treatment preferences of patients with muscle invasive bladder cancer: A discrete choice experiment
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1