Добавил:
Sekretar
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru
t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_1267_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
X
- •Foreword
- •Foreword
- •Contents
- •References
- •2.1 Introduction
- •2.2.1 Crohn’s Disease
- •2.2.2 Ulcerative Colitis
- •References
- •3.2.1 Bacterial Sensing
- •3.2.1.2 Toll-Like Receptors, TLRs
- •3.2.2 Autophagy: Autophagy-Related 16-like 1, ATG16L1
- •3.1 Introduction
- •3.2.4.1 Interleukin-23 Receptor, IL-23R
- •3.2.4.2 Fractalkine Receptor 1, CX3CR1
- •3.2.4.3 Transforming Growth Factor Beta (TGF-β)
- •3.2.4.4 Angiotensinogen
- •3.2.4.5 Tumour Necrosis Factor Alpha (TNFα)
- •3.2.6 Cell Signalling: Janus Kinase 2 (JAK2)
- •3.2.8 Other Processes
- •References
- •4.1 Introduction
- •4.2 Genetics
- •4.3 Epigenetics
- •4.5 DNA Methylation
- •4.9 MicroRNA
- •4.12 Summary
- •References
- •5.1 Introduction
- •5.2.1 TNFα
- •5.2.2 Th1 Cytokines
- •5.2.3 IL-1 Cytokines
- •5.2.4 Th2 Cytokines
- •5.2.5 Th17 Cytokines
- •5.2.6 TL1A
- •5.3 “Regulatory” Cytokines
- •5.3.1 TGFβ
- •5.3.2 IL-10
- •5.4 Concluding Remarks
- •References
- •6.1.1.1 Collagens
- •6.1.1.3 Glycoproteins
- •6.2.1 Integrins
- •6.3.1 Extracellular Matrix Stiffness
- •6.3.1.1 Modeling Extracellular Matrix Stiffness
- •References
- •7.1 Introduction
- •7.5 Future Outlook
- •References
- •8.1 Introduction
- •8.2.1 Smoking
- •8.3 Conclusion
- •References
- •9.4 Conclusions
- •References
- •10.1 Ulcerative Colitis
- •10.1.1 Epidemiology
- •10.1.2 Etiology
- •10.2.1 Pathogenesis
- •References
- •11.4 Conclusion
- •References
- •12.1 Introduction
- •12.2 Clinical Biomarkers
- •12.3 Cellular Biomarkers
- •12.4 Serologic Biomarkers
- •12.5 Other Factors
- •12.6 Conclusions
- •References
- •13.1 Introduction
- •13.3 Bowel Ultrasound
- •13.4 Computed Tomography Enterography
- •13.5 Magnetic Resonance Imaging
- •13.5.2 Functional MR Imaging Techniques
- •13.5.3 Hybrid Imaging Techniques
- •13.6 Conclusion
- •References
- •14.1.1 Ultrasound Stiffness Imaging
- •14.1.2 Shear Wave Elastography
- •14.5 Conclusion
- •References
- •15.1 Introduction
- •15.2.1 Stricturing IBD
- •15.2.2 Stricturing CD
- •15.2.3 Stricturing UC
- •15.4.1 Steroids
- •15.4.2 5-ASA
- •15.4.3 Purine Analogs
- •15.4.4 Methotrexate
- •15.4.5 Anti-TNFs
- •15.4.6 Other Biologics
- •15.5 Other Measures
- •15.6 Conclusion
- •References
- •16.1 Introduction
- •17.2.4 Abscess
- •17.3 Stricturoplasty or Resection
- •17.4 Approach
- •16.6 Conclusion
- •References
- •17.1 Introduction
- •17.2.2 Fibrotic Phenotype
- •17.2.3 Fistulising Disease
- •17.4.1 Open
- •17.4.2 Handassisted
- •17.4.3 Multi-Port
- •17.4.4 Single-Port
- •17.4.5 Single Port versus Multi-Port
- •17.4.6 Decision Making
- •17.5 Anastomosis
- •17.7 Conclusion
- •References
- •18.1 Introduction
- •18.4.1 Initial Evaluation
- •18.5.1 Pre-IPAA (Afferent Limb/Ileostomy Closure Site)
- •18.5.2 The Fibrotic IPAA Body
- •18.5.3 Post-IPAA (Efferent Limb, Anal Canal)
- •18.6 Conclusion
- •References
- •19.2 Pathophysiology
- •19.3 Diagnosis
- •19.4 Surgical Approach
- •19.4.1 Resections
- •19.4.2 Strictureplasties
- •19.4.2.1 History
- •19.4.2.2 Indications
- •19.4.2.3 General Technique
- •19.4.2.4 Conventional Strictureplasties
- •Judd Strictureplasty
- •Moskel-Walske-Neumayer Strictureplasty
- •Jaboulay Strictureplasty
- •Poggioli Strictureplasty
- •19.4.2.6 Results
- •Short-Term Results
- •Long-Term Results
- •19.5 Future Perspectives
- •References
- •20.1 Introduction
- •20.6 Summary
- •References
- •21.1 Introduction
- •21.2 Wound Healing
- •21.3 Crohn’s Disease Fistula
- •21.7 Summary
- •References
- •22.1 Introduction
- •22.3 The Transforming Growth Factor-β (TGF-β) Pathways
- •22.4.1 Connective Tissue Growth Factor (CTGF/CCN2)
- •22.4.2 Platelet Derived Growth Factor
- •22.4.3 Wnt-Signaling
- •22.4.4 Hedgehog Signaling
- •22.4.5 Notch Signaling
- •22.6.1 Coagulation Stage
- •22.6.3 Fibrous Adhesion Stage
- •22.7.4 Material Barriers
- •22.7.5 Pharmaceutical Approaches
- •22.8.4 Smooth Muscle Cells
- •22.12 Conclusions
- •References
- •23.1 Introduction
- •23.2 Liver
- •23.2.1 Farnesoid X Receptor (FXR)
- •23.2.2 Lysyl Oxidase (LOXL2)
- •23.2.3 Statins
- •23.2.4 5-Hydroxytryptamine (5HT)
- •23.2.5 Caspase Inhibition
- •23.2.6 Chemokine Receptors CCR2/5
- •23.2.7 GR-MD-02
- •23.2.8 PPAR Gamma
- •23.3 Lung
- •23.3.1 Pirfenidone
- •23.3.2 Nintedanib/Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors
- •23.3.3 Lysophospholipids
- •23.3.4 mTOR
- •23.3.5 Prostacyclin
- •23.3.6 Integrin αvβ6
- •23.3.7 Endothelin Receptor Antagonism
- •23.3.8 Interleukin (IL)-13
- •23.3.9 Connective Tissue Growth Factor
- •23.3.10 Serum Amyloid P
- •23.4 Kidney
- •23.4.2 Pyridoxamine
- •23.4.3 Janus Kinase (JAK)1/2
- •23.4.4 Bindarit-CCL (MCP) Inhibitor
- •23.4.5 Phosphodiesterase Inhibition
- •23.5 Skin
- •23.5.1 TGFβ Targeted Therapies
- •23.5.2 Thalidomide/Pomalidomide
- •23.5.3 Paquinimod
- •23.6 Heart
- •23.6.1 Renin Angiotensin Aldosterone System (RAAS)
- •23.6.2 Transforming Growth Factor (TGF)-β
- •23.7 Conclusion
- •References
- •Index

21 What Distinguishes Mechanisms ofFistula andStricture Formation
311
cancer progression [26, 27]. During EMT, a differentiated, resident epithelial cell
loses its epithelial cell shape, down-regulates epithelial-cell specic proteins as
E-cadherin or claudin-4. And acquires a mesenchymal cell shape accompanied by
the upregulation of mesenchymal proteins, such as vimentin [26].
The process of EMT has been clearly demonstrated in pathogenesis of
CD-associated stulas [12, 24]. In particular, tracts of CD stulas are covered by
intestinal epithelial cells (IEC) as well as by “transitional cells” (TC). The transitional cells develop from intestinal epithelial cells via EMT and express typical
mesenchymal cell markers, such as vimentin and alpha smooth-muscle-actin
(α-SMA), in addition to their epithelial markers, such as cytokeratins (CK)-8,
CK-20 or E-cadherin [24]. Additionally, in cells undergoing EMT, nuclear localization of β-catenin and of the EMT-associated transcription factor SLUG, can be
detected. A further hint for an involvement of EMT in stula development is the
strong expression of transforming growth factor (TGF) β, the most powerful driving
force for EMT, in cells along as well as surrounding the CD stula tracts [24, 28].
Immunohistochemical studies have also detected Snail family transcription factors
in cells lining the stula tract as well as around CD-associated stulas. On the one
hand, SNAIL1 is detected in nuclei of transitional cells lining the stula tracts. On
the other hand, SLUG (SNAIL2) is expressed in cells of stula surrounding tissue,
but almost absent in transitional cells [29].
21.5 Molecules Involved inCD Fistula Formation
IL-13 is strongly expressed in cells lining the stula tract and also, to some lesser
extent, in stula surrounding brotic tissue layers. On a molecular level, TGFβ is
able to induce IL-13 secretion from colonic lamina propria broblasts (CLPF)
derived from CD patients with stulizing disease, but not from non-IBD control
patients or CD patients without stulas. This suggests a specic amplication loop
in CD stula tissue [13, 24]. Recent data have also shown that IL-13 induces expression of the EMT transcription factor SLUG as well as of β6-Integrin, a protein that
is associated with cell invasiveness, in an invitro model of EMT using HT29 IEC
spheroids [13]. Further support for the “amplication loop” theory is given by the
fact that TNF and TNF-receptor 1 are also strongly detectable in cells lining the
CD-associated stula tracts [29]. We and others have demonstrated that TNF induces
EMT and the expression of EMT-associated genes in IEC spheroids [30, 31]. TNF
and TGFβ also induce the expression of the Wnt-antagonist, Dickkopf- homolog 1
(DKK-1) in CLPF derived from CD patients with stulas. DKK-1 is expressed
along stula tracts in CD patients and limits TGFβ-induced IL-13 expression (32).
Support for the hypothesis that the intestinal microbiota is somehow involved in
stula formation in CD patients is provided by the observation that the bacterial wall
component, muramyl-dipeptide (MDP), induces not only EMT in IEC, but also the
expression of stula-associated molecules in IEC and stula CLPF [30].

312
With respect to matrix remodelling enzymes, a strong expression of MMP-3 and
MMP-9 can be observed in CD stulae, while levels TIMP-1, TIMP-2 and TIMP-3
are lower compared to their expression level in colon tissue from non-IBD patients.
This observation supports the assumption that stula formation is associated with a
dysbalance of matrix remodelling enzymes, in particular of MMPs and TIMPs,
what contributes to the development of stulas through enhanced ECM degradation
[32]. All of those observations strongly suggest EMT-like processes in the pathogenesis of CD-associated stulae [12, 13, 24, 29, 30, 33]. Additionally, stulaassociated molecules seem to be associated with the development of so-called
stula-carcinomas in CD patients, a very severe and important complication of CD
and CD-associated stulas [34–36].
M. Scharl
21.6 Pathogenetic Differences Between Stricture
andFistula Formation
Inammation is a crucial trigger for tissue regeneration, but nowadays knowledge
suggest that uncontrolled or chronic inammation might also be an important trigger for both brosis and stula formation [1, 37]. Unfortunately, to date, this has
not been demonstrated formally in mammalian animal models. Mouse and rat
models only rarely and late develop brotic alterations in the intestine and the onset
of clinically relevant strictures or stulas is very rare. Nevertheless, the general
concept of an inammatory trigger for development of brosis and stulas is generally accepted.
From a clinical point of view, there is no medication available that directly targets brosis and anti-inammatory treatment in IBD patients at the same time and
is also sufcient to treat brosis once excessive ECM deposition has occurred [38,
39]. Subsequently pathophysiological mechanisms perpetuating stula and/or bro-
sis formation may be distinct from the ones regulating the onset of brosis and stula formation. In particular, inammation seems to play an important role in the
beginning of brotic tissue alterations and stula development. However, the impact
of inammation in later stages of the disease is unclear. This aspect becomes very
interesting when considering novel therapeutic strategies, such as SMAD7 antisense oligonucleotides that affect TGFβ function.
While treatment options for intestinal inammation in IBD patients become
more and more sophisticated, options for treatment and prevention of intestinal
brosis or stula formation are still very limited. This is also due to the fact that our
understanding of the pathophysiological mechanisms of stula and brosis development is scarce. Of course, stulas and brosis share some common pathogenetic
features, such as EMT, but have also clearly distinct pathways and triggers.
Currently, the most promising approach to prevent brosis and likely also stula
development might be to control inammation before the complication has occured.
Therapeutic interventions to control inammation once stenosis/brosis or stulas
have been formed are in general not successful [38].

21 What Distinguishes Mechanisms ofFistula andStricture Formation
313
From a molecular perspective, the development of brosis is dened as the
excessive accumulation of ECM what nally causes organ dysfunction or even
organ failure [26]. Current knowledge suggests that the key factors for brosis are
chronic tissue damage due to chronic inammation, overwhelming or defective
wound healing mechanisms and expanding mesenchymal cells, mostly broblasts,
myobroblasts and smooth muscle cells [40]. Fibroblasts are continuously producing ECM as part of continuously ongoing tissue regeneration mechanisms.
Following injury or inammation, mesenchymal cells are able to rapidly proliferate
and to invade the affected sites of injury or inammation from within and without
the intestinal tract. Hereby they follow a chemical gradient which is produced by
growth factors. Finally, the broblasts become activated by a cocktail of cytokines
that is produced by and secreted from immune as well as non-immune cells [40]. As
a consequence, the mesenchymal cells produce excessive amounts of collagen and
other components of the ECM [41]. Nevertheless, expression and activity of MMPs
and their inhibitors TIMPs are elevated in the intestine of CD and UC patients. This
suggests that the development of intestinal brosis in IBD patients is not only due
to excessive ECM production, but rather dependent on an imbalance in regular
tissue- remodeling processes [6]. Here, a clear correlation to the development of
CD-associated stulas is seen. Aberrant matrix remodeling, production of ECM
components and a deregulated ECM turn-over are characteristic features of the
development of both, stulas and brosis. Noteworthy, CD stulas are commonly
surrounded by brotic tissue: A possible explanation for this observation might be
the fact that the body aims at initiating wound healing around the stula tracts.
Since the stula itself can be already result from defective wound healing mechanisms, the onset of brosis and the development of brotic tissue around the stula
tract might serve to limit ongoing tissue damage as well as further stula growth. In
this regard, the onset of brosis around stula tracts would represent a rescue mechanism of the intestinal tissue. A further hint to his theory is the fact that broblasts
which are isolated from dense brosis tissue reveal a clearly higher migratory
potential as colonic lamina propria broblasts (CLPF) isolated from stulas. These
observations suggest that broblasts in stula areas might exert a lower capacity to
repair tissue defects. As a compensatory mechanism, intestinal epithelial cells might
be reprogrammed via EMT into mesenchymal cells. This allows them to migrate to
the affected tissue regions what nally promotes stula formation [42].
While the involvement of cytokines and growth factors, such as IL-13, TNF or
TGFβ in the pathogenesis of intestinal brosis has been well documented [6, 40],
recent studies also suggest an involvement of TNF and IL-13 as well as of their
receptors in stula formation. Those molecules are highly expressed in TC lining
stula tracts. These observations support the hypothesis that comparable mechanisms might contribute to the onset stulas and brosis in the intestine. This assumption is even more underlined by the observation that EMT is crucial for stula
development and that hallmarks of EMT are be detected in areas of intestinal brosis
in CD patients [28, 43]. TGFβ, the most powerful inducer of EMT, is highly detectable in stula as well as brotic regions of IBD patients [24, 44]. Additionally, the
EMT-associated molecule, β-catenin, is less expressed in the membrane, but strongly

314
M. Scharl
expressed in the nucleus, in brotic areas and stulas hinting at its enhanced transcriptional activity. While the EMT-related transcription factor SNAIL1 is strongly
expressed in both, stula tissue and brotic tissue, expression of SLUG transcription
factor can only be observed in the nuclei of mesenchymal cells in brotic areas. In
transitional cells along CD stulas SLUG expression is only poorly detectable [28,
29]. Interestingly, in a case report of a patient with a stula- associated anal adeno-
carcinoma, a remarkable staining of SLUG transcription factor was shown not only
in TC lining the stula tract, but also in the carcinoma tissue originating from those
cells [34]. As a limitation, however, one must mention that all of the current literature studying the pathogenic role for EMT in Crohn’s disease intestinal stulas and
brosis are based on descriptive results obtained by haematoxylin- eosin staining,
immunohistochemistry and electron microscopy only. Due to this lack of functional
studies and in particular invivo studies on this topic, the true relevance for EMT in
stula and brosis development in CD patients warrants further conrmation.
Increased levels of IL-13 in the brotic intestine of CD patients are produced by
a population of cells expressing high levels of IL-13Rα
phenotype, those cells (KIR+ CD45+ CD56± CD3− IL-13Rα
[45]. According to their
1
+
) might be innate lym-
1
phoid cells (ILC). Fibroblasts down-regulate levels of MMP-2 as well as of TNFinduced MMP-1 and MMP-9 protein in response to IL-13 [45]. A very interesting
observation in brosis and stula development are the effects of IL-13 and TGFβ. In
the pathogenesis of brosis, IL-13 induces TGFβ secretion. In contrast, in stula
development stula-derived myobroblasts secrete IL-13 following stimulation with
TGFβ [13, 44]. Nevertheless, conicting results have been demonstrated with respect
to the impact of IL-13 in the development of intestinal brosis in stricturing CD [46]
suggesting that the possible pro-brogenic role of IL-13 in CD needs to be critically
reassessed. A further hint to the complexity of stula and brosis development is the
observation that IFNγ is able to induce broblast apoptosis following co-treatment
with TNF in an invitro model of brosis [47, 48]. However, TNF is able to induce
intestinal brosis by inducing collagen accumulation and inammation [48].
Fistula formation in CD patients and development of intestinal brosis exhibit
several similarities, but they also features remarkable differences. In the pathogenesis of CD stulas, less migratory potential of myobroblasts and an aberrant ECM
production occurs, while as a compensatory mechanism, intestinal epithelial cells
invade the wounded area to close the wound area. In contrast, increased proliferation as well as migration of myobroblasts followed by enhanced matrix synthesis
might be the critical mechanism in the development of intestinal brosis [6].
21.7 Summary
A well-balanced wound healing response represents a critical repair mechanism of
the intestinal tract during acute and chronic intestinal inammation. Defective
wound healing promotes the onset of stulas or brosis, the latter possibly resulting
in clinically relevant stenosis or strictures. On a molecular level, EMT might play a

21 What Distinguishes Mechanisms ofFistula andStricture Formation
315
crucial role for the development of both, stulas and brosis. However, the exact
mechanisms for their development are not yet determined. This clearly suggests that
further studies and if possible in vivo studies, are needed to gain a better understanding of both pathologies, which would be essential for the development of novel
therapeutic strategies aiming at preventing and healing stulas and stenosis. It is
necessary to consider stula formation as a pathological process which is distinct
from inammation. This has also been discussed for the development of intestinal
brosis. It will certainly be a great achievement to better understand the pathways
of stula formation and to compare those mechanisms to those of frequently coincident brosis formation. Since treatment options for stula and brosis therapy are
limited to date, this represents one of the big unmet goals in IBD therapy and further
research is clearly needed [37].
21.8 Conict ofInterest Statement
No conicts of interest exist.
References
1. Karin M, Clevers H.Reparative inammation takes charge of tissue regeneration. Nature.
2016;529(7586):307–15.
2. Medzhitov R.Origin and physiological roles of inammation. Nature. 2008;454(7203):428–35.
3. Rieder F, Fiocchi C.Mechanisms of tissue remodeling in inammatory bowel disease. Dig
Dis. 2013;31(2):186–93.
4. Clevers H.The intestinal crypt, a prototype stem cell compartment. Cell. 2013;154(2):274–84.
5. Sato T, van Es JH, Snippert HJ, Stange DE, Vries RG, van den Born M, etal. Paneth cells
constitute the niche for Lgr5 stem cells in intestinal crypts. Nature. 2011;469(7330):415–8.
6. Rieder F, Brenmoehl J, Leeb S, Scholmerich J, Rogler G.Wound healing and brosis in intes-
tinal disease. Gut. 2007;56(1):130–9.
7. Vaday GG, Lider O.Extracellular matrix moieties, cytokines, and enzymes: dynamic effects
on immune cell behavior and inammation. J Leukoc Biol. 2000;67(2):149–59.
8. Rock KL, Latz E, Ontiveros F, Kono H.The sterile inammatory response. Annu Rev Immunol.
2010;28:321–42.
9. Stevens LJ, Page-McCaw A.A secreted MMP is required for reepithelialization during wound
healing. Mol Biol Cell. 2012;23(6):1068–79.
10. Chalaris A, Adam N, Sina C, Rosenstiel P, Lehmann-Koch J, Schirmacher P, etal. Critical role
of the disintegrin metalloprotease ADAM17 for intestinal inammation and regeneration in
mice. J Exp Med. 2010;207(8):1617–24.
11. Scheller J, Chalaris A, Garbers C, Rose-John S.ADAM17: a molecular switch to control
inammation and tissue regeneration. Trends Immunol. 2011;32(8):380–7.
12. Bataille F, Klebl F, Rummele P, Schroeder J, Farkas S, Wild PJ, etal. Morphological charac-
terisation of Crohn’s disease stulae. Gut. 2004;53(9):1314–21.
13. Scharl M, Frei S, Pesch T, Kellermeier S, Arikkat J, Frei P, etal. Interleukin-13 and trans-
forming growth factor beta synergise in the pathogenesis of human intestinal stulae. Gut.
2013;62(1):63–72.

316
14. McKee RF, Keenan RA. Perianal Crohn’s disease--is it all bad news? Dis Colon Rectum.
1996;39(2):136–42.
15. van Dongen LM, Lubbers EJ.Perianal stulas in patients with Crohn’s disease. Arch Surg.
1986;121(10):1187–90.
16. Schwartz DA, Loftus EV Jr, Tremaine WJ, Panaccione R, Harmsen WS, Zinsmeister AR,
et al. The natural history of stulizing Crohn’s disease in Olmsted County, Minnesota.
Gastroenterology. 2002;122(4):875–80.
17. Judge TA, Lichtenstein GR.Treatment of stulizing Crohn’s disease. Gastroenterol Clin N
Am. 2004;33(2):421–54, xi-xii.
18. Hellers G, Bergstrand O, Ewerth S, Holmstrom B.Occurrence and outcome after primary
treatment of anal stulae in Crohn’s disease. Gut. 1980;21(6):525–7.
19. Solomon MJ.Fistulae and abscesses in symptomatic perianal Crohn’s disease. Int J Color Dis.
1996;11(5):222–6.
20. Gecse KB, Bemelman W, Kamm MA, Stoker J, Khanna R, Ng SC, etal. A global consensus
on the classication, diagnosis and multidisciplinary treatment of perianal stulising Crohn’s
disease. Gut. 2014;63(9):1381–92.
21. Yu H, Liu Y, Wang Y, Peng L, Li A, Zhang Y.Clinical, endoscopic and histological differentia-
tions between Crohn’s disease and intestinal tuberculosis. Digestion. 2012;85(3):202–9.
22. Makharia GK, Srivastava S, Das P, Goswami P, Singh U, Tripathi M, etal. Clinical, endo-
scopic, and histological differentiations between Crohn’s disease and intestinal tuberculosis.
Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105(3):642–51.
23. Plesec TP, Owens SR.Inammatory and neoplastic disorders of the anal canal. In: Odze RD,
Goldblum JR, editors. Surgical pathology of the GI tract, liver, biliary tract and pancreas. 3rd
ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2015. p.887–920.
24. Bataille F, Rohrmeier C, Bates R, Weber A, Rieder F, Brenmoehl J, etal. Evidence for a role of
epithelial mesenchymal transition during pathogenesis of stulae in Crohn’s disease. Inamm
Bowel Dis. 2008;14(11):1514–27.
25. Maggi L, Capone M, Giudici F, Santarlasci V, Querci V, Liotta F, etal. CD4+CD161+ T lym-
phocytes inltrate Crohn’s disease-associated perianal stulas and are reduced by anti-TNFalpha local therapy. Int Arch Allergy Immunol. 2013;161(1):81–6.
26. Kalluri R, Weinberg RA. The basics of epithelial-mesenchymal transition. J Clin Invest.
2009;119(6):1420–8.
27. Kalluri R, Neilson EG.Epithelial-mesenchymal transition and its implications for brosis. J
Clin Invest. 2003;112(12):1776–84.
28. Scharl M, Rogler G, Biedermann L. Fistulizing Crohn’s disease. Clin Transl Gastroenterol.
2017;8(7):e106. https://doi.org/10.1038/ctg.2017.33.
29. Scharl M, Weber A, Furst A, Farkas S, Jehle E, Pesch T, etal. Potential role for SNAIL family
transcription factors in the etiology of Crohn’s disease-associated stulae. Inamm Bowel Dis.
2011;17(9):1907–16.
30. Frei SM, Pesch T, Lang S, Weber A, Jehle E, Vavricka SR, etal. A role for tumor necrosis fac-
tor and bacterial antigens in the pathogenesis of Crohn’s disease-associated stulae. Inamm
Bowel Dis. 2013;19(13):2878–87.
31. Bates RC, Mercurio AM.Tumor necrosis factor-alpha stimulates the epithelial-to- mesenchymal
transition of human colonic organoids. Mol Biol Cell. 2003;14(5):1790–800.
32. Kirkegaard T, Hansen A, Bruun E, Brynskov J.Expression and localisation of matrix metal-
loproteinases and their natural inhibitors in stulae of patients with Crohn’s disease. Gut.
2004;53(5):701–9.
33. Frei SM, Hemsley C, Pesch T, Lang S, Weber A, Jehle E, etal. The role for dickkopf- homolog-1in
the pathogenesis of Crohn’s disease-associated stulae. PLoS One. 2013;8(11):e78882.
34. Scharl M, Frei P, Frei SM, Biedermann L, Weber A, Rogler G.Epithelial-to-mesenchymal
transition in a stula-associated anal adenocarcinoma in a patient with long-standing Crohn’s
disease. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014;26(1):114–8.
M. Scharl

21 What Distinguishes Mechanisms ofFistula andStricture Formation
35. Kim J, Lee HS, Park SH, Yang SK, Ye BD, Yang DH, etal. Pathologic features of colorec-
tal carcinomas associated with Crohn’s disease in Korean population. Pathol Res Pract.
2017;213(3):250–5.
36. Maejima T, Kono T, Orii F, Maemoto A, Furukawa S, Liming W, etal. Anal canal adenocarci-
noma in a patient with longstanding Crohn’s disease arising from rectal mucosa that migrated
from a previously treated rectovaginal stula. Am J Case Rep. 2016;17:448–53.
37. Siegmund B, Feakins RM, Barmias G, Ludvig JC, Teixeira FV, Rogler G, etal. Results of the
fth scientic workshop of the ECCO (II): pathophysiology of perianal stulizing disease. J
Crohns Colitis. 2015;10(4):377–86.
38. Latella G, Rogler G, Bamias G, Breynaert C, Florholmen J, Pellino G, etal. Results of the 4th
scientic workshop of the ECCO (I): pathophysiology of intestinal brosis in IBD.J Crohns
Colitis. 2014;8(10):1147–65.
39. Lawrance IC, Rogler G, Bamias G, Breynaert C, Florholmen J, Pellino G, etal. Cellular and
molecular mediators of intestinal brosis. J Crohns Colitis. 2015;11(12):1491–503.
40. Rieder F.The gut microbiome in intestinal brosis: environmental protector or provocateur?
Sci Transl Med. 2013;5(190):190ps10.
41. Burke JP, Mulsow JJ, O’Keane C, Docherty NG, Watson RW, O’Connell PR.Fibrogenesis in
Crohn’s disease. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007;102(2):439–48.
42. Meier JK, Scharl M, Miller SN, Brenmoehl J, Hausmann M, Kellermeier S, etal. Specic
differences in migratory function of myobroblasts isolated from Crohn’s disease stulae and
strictures. Inamm Bowel Dis. 2011;17(1):202–12.
43. Scharl M, Rogler G. Pathophysiology of stula formation in Crohn’s disease. World J
Gastrointest Pathophysiol. 2014;5(3):205–12.
44. Rieder F, Fiocchi C.Intestinal brosis in IBD--a dynamic, multifactorial process. Nat Rev
Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009;6(4):228–35.
45. Bailey JR, Bland PW, Tarlton JF, Peters I, Moorghen M, Sylvester PA, etal. IL-13 promotes
collagen accumulation in Crohn’s disease brosis by down-regulation of broblast MMP synthesis: a role for innate lymphoid cells? PLoS One. 2012;7(12):e52332.
46. Biancheri P, Di Sabatino A, Ammoscato F, Facciotti F, Caprioli F, Curciarello R, etal. Absence
of a role for interleukin-13in inammatory bowel disease. Eur J Immunol. 2014;44(2):370–85.
47. Bettenworth D, Rieder F.Reversibility of Stricturing Crohn’s disease-fact or ction? Inamm
Bowel Dis. 2015;22(1):241–7.
48. Speca S, Giusti I, Rieder F, Latella G.Cellular and molecular mechanisms of intestinal bro-
sis. World J Gastroenterol. 2012;18(28):3635–61.
317

Chapter 22
The Pathogenesis ofIntraabdominal
Adhesions: Similarities
andDifferences toLuminal Fibrosis
EdwardMacarak andJoelRosenbloom
Abstract Essentially every organ in the human body, including the intestine, can be
affected by brotic reactions. Under normal homeostatic conditions these reactions
are self-limited and constitute an important reparative process aimed at the restoration of the functional integrity of injured tissues. However, under pathologic circumstances the homeostatic regulatory mechanisms evolve into an uncontrolled brotic
process characterized by the accumulation of large amounts of brotic tissue, which
disrupts normal organ architecture and ultimately leads to organ failure. Even
though their etiology varies greatly, all brotic reactions share common features. It
is universally accepted that myobroblasts are the cells ultimately responsible for
the pathologic brotic process. Myobroblasts, expressing α-smooth muscle actin
(α-SMA), comprise a distinctive population of mesenchymal cells. When activated,
they markedly increase the production of brillar collagens (types I, III, V, and VI)
and other extracellular matrix (ECM) macromolecules coupled with an increased
inhibition of ECM-degradative enzymes which may result in the production of injurious scar tissue in the intestine. While abdominal adhesions may be caused by
infection, inammation or ischemia, surgical procedures are the primary cause.
Unfortunately, adequate therapeutic solutions have proven elusive. The peritoneal
surfaces, both visceral and parietal, are covered by a monolayer of mesothelial cells
bound to a basement membrane. Because the mesothelial cells are weakly connected, the peritoneal surface is delicate and easily injured, resulting in a series of
events, which can be broken down into coagulation cascade and inammatory stages
leading to a brous adhesion stage. TGF-β, IL-6 and likely other cytokines and
growth factors play critical roles in adhesion formation by mediating the formation
of myobroblasts and stimulating the production of ECM.In the pathogenesis of
brosis in inammatory bowel disease (IBD), many factors need to be considered,
including a much more sustained inammatory response, a clear if still poorly
understood genetic predisposition, the potential involvement of multiple mesenchy-
E. Macarak (*) · J. Rosenbloom
The Joan and Joel Rosenbloom Center for Fibrotic Diseases, Philadelphia, PA, USA
Department of Dermatology and Cutaneous Biology, Sydney Kimmel Medical College,
Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA
e-mail: Edward.Macarak@jefferson.edu; Joel.Rosenbloom@jefferson.edu
F. Rieder (ed.), Fibrostenotic Inammatory Bowel Disease,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90578-5_22
319© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

320
E. Macarak and J. Rosenbloom
mal cells, exposure of the mucosa to intestinal bacteria and the involvement of the
immune system. In IBD, the normal wound healing process triggered by injury and
inammation fails and, instead of resolution, there is continued ECM production by
myobroblasts. Because of a protracted inammatory response, one could imagine
that anti-inammatory therapy might be an effective approach. Unfortunately, this
has not been the case, and it appears that once the damaging brotic reaction has
been initiated in brosis-prone individuals, it is self-propagating. Thus, as in other
brotic situations, the aberrant myobroblast becomes the ultimate target. However,
unlike adhesions in which the potential instigators can be anticipated and candidate
drugs given over a fairly short time, in IBD the pathogenesis is much more protracted. There are a number of FDA—approved drugs capable of intercepting pathways potentially critical in the brotic reaction. TGF-β signaling is, of course, the
primary target. However, because of the manifold activities of TGF-β, one or more
downstream events in the signaling pathways must be judiciously selected so as not
to elicit toxic responses. The same caution must be applied when dealing with other
potential targets. Because of the inherent redundancy in signaling from multiple
cytokines/growth factors involved in brotic reactions, it is likely that more than one
drug must be administered simultaneously to obtain effective benecial inhibition.
Keywords Fibrosis · Myobroblasts · TGF-β · Abdominal adhesions ·
Inammatory bowel disease · Crohn’s disease · Ulcerative colitis
22.1 Introduction
In order to place abdominal adhesions and luminal brosis in inammatory bowel
disease (IBD) on a more comprehensive platform to take advantage of what is
known in other systems characterized by brotic reactions, we rst discuss the
pathophysiology of brosis in a general sense. Essentially every organ in the human
body can be affected by brotic reactions. Under normal homeostatic conditions,
these reactions are self-limited and constitute an important reparative process aimed
at the restoration of the functional integrity of injured tissues through a complex
sequence of events constituting tissue repair. However, under pathologic circumstances, the homeostatic regulatory mechanisms evolve into an unrestrained brotic
process characterized by the progressive and uncontrolled accumulation of large
amounts of connective tissue which disrupts the normal organ architecture and ultimately leads to organ failure [1–3]. These reactions can cause multi-system diseases
such as Systemic Sclerosis (SSc) [4, 5], as well as brotic disorders affecting individual organs including those of the gastro-intestinal system. Despite considerable
understanding of the pathogenesis of the brotic process attained recently [1–3],
disease- modifying therapy for the brotic diseases is extremely limited. Even
though etiologic agents vary greatly, the brotic diseases all share common molecular alterations that result in the exaggerated and uncontrolled accumulation of extracellular matrix (ECM) macromolecules in the affected tissues which may result in
the replacement of functioning tissue such as alveoli in the lung, myocytes in the

22 The Pathogenesis ofIntraabdominal Adhesions
321
heart, or nephrons in the kidney either with non-functional brotic tissue or injurious scar tissue in the gut [6–9]. At the cellular level, it is universally accepted that
myobroblasts are the cells ultimately responsible for pathologic ECM synthesis in
brotic disorders [10–13]. Myobroblasts, expressing alpha smooth muscle actin
(α-SMA), comprise a distinctive population of mesenchymal cells, which markedly
increase the production of brillar collagens (types I, III, V, and VI) and other ECM
macromolecules coupled with an increased inhibition of ECM-degradative enzymes
[14–16]. Furthermore, such alterations in the ECM produce changes in the biomechanical properties of the affected tissues causing a progressive increase in tissue
stiffness, a potentially potent pro-brotic stimulus [17–20].
The origin of myobroblasts, still a contentious issue, may vary depending upon
the organ affected and the particular brotic reaction [11, 13, 21–23]. There are
several potential sources including: [1] recruitment of broblast precursor cells
(brocytes) from bone marrow, [2] trans-differentiation of various cell types including pericytes, adipocytes, and epithelial, mesothelial, and endothelial cells into a
mesenchymal phenotype, [3] proliferation and activation of quiescent tissue- resident broblasts into a myobroblast phenotype (see Fig.22.1) and [4] sub-epithelial
myobroblasts. Although epithelial to mesenchymal transition (EMT), endothelial
to mesenchymal transition (EndoMT), or pericyte to myobroblast transition may
play a role under specic circumstances [13, 21–23], the current preponderance of
opinion is that the activation of tissue-resident broblasts is the major source of
activated myobroblasts. However, even though the trans-differentiation of various
cell types may not be a predominant source of myobroblasts during brotic disorders, alterations in the phenotype of the trans-differentiated cells may result in the
production and secretion of pro-brotic factors, including TGF-β, which play an
important role in the brotic process. Furthermore, these phenotypically-modied
cells may produce numerous macromolecules which may enhance the brotic
response such as the EDA form of bronectin (FnEDA) and other ECM components
including proteoglycans and several matricellular molecules [21–26].
22.2 Targeting Myobroblasts
There are multiple potential levels that could be targeted for inhibition of brotic
responses, such as elimination of the primary cause as in treatment of viral hepatitis
for liver brosis, diminution of the immunologic and inammatory responses in
SSc and Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis (IPF), and elimination of the untoward probrotic activities of myobroblasts. Regrettably, owing to the lack of a comprehensive understanding of the etiologic mechanisms in the majority of the brotic
disorders, opportunities for elimination of the originating cause of the brotic reaction are rare, and reduction of the immunologic and inammatory responses has
proven to be generally ineffective in abrogating pathologic brotic processes. Thus,
modulation of the deleterious pro-brotic activity of myobroblasts remains the
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана
