Warning: fopen(/home/virtual/colon/journal/upload/ip_log/ip_log_2025-07.txt): failed to open stream: Permission denied in /home/virtual/lib/view_data.php on line 95 Warning: fwrite() expects parameter 1 to be resource, boolean given in /home/virtual/lib/view_data.php on line 96 Unraveling the enigma of sclerosing encapsulating peritonitis: a comprehensive review
Skip Navigation
Skip to contents

Ann Coloproctol : Annals of Coloproctology

OPEN ACCESS
SEARCH
Search
Advanced Search
mobile menu button

Articles

Page Path
HOME > Ann Coloproctol > Volume 41(3); 2025 > Article
Review Article
Others
 Unraveling the enigma of sclerosing encapsulating peritonitis: a comprehensive review
Witcha Vipudhamorn1,2,*orcid, Tawan Juthasilaparut3,*orcid, Pawit Sutharat1,2orcid, Suwan Sanmee1,2orcid, Ekkarin Supatrakul1,2orcid, Sayanan Chowsilpa4orcid, Kraipop Wongwaiyut5orcid, Rujee Rattanasathien2orcid
Annals of Coloproctology 2025;41(3):175-189.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2024.00486.0069
Published online: June 18, 2025

1Division of Colorectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand

2Clinical Surgical Research Center, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand

3Department of Surgery, Lampang Hospital, Lampang, Thailand

4Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand

5Department of Surgery, Trang Hospital, Trang, Thailand

Correspondence to: Tawan Juthasilaparut, FRCS (Gen Surg) Department of Surgery, Lampang Hospital, 280 Phahon Yothin Rd, Hua Wiang Subdistrict, Mueang Lampang District, Lampang 52000, Thailand Email: tawan.juth@gmail.com
*Witcha Vipudhamorn and Tawan Juthasilaparut contributed equally to this study as co-first authors.
• Received: August 4, 2024   • Revised: September 4, 2024   • Accepted: November 18, 2024

© 2025 The Korean Society of Coloproctology

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

prev next
  • 363 Views
  • 30 Download
Full Article

Download PDF Download PDF

  • Sclerosing encapsulating peritonitis (SEP) is a rare but serious condition characterized by the progressive formation of a dense fibrous sheath encasing the small bowel within the peritoneal cavity. This review provides a comprehensive overview of the current understanding of SEP, focusing on its etiology, clinical presentation, diagnostic modalities, and management strategies. SEP can be classified into primary and secondary forms, each with distinct etiologies and treatment approaches. Primary SEP typically presents with acute or subacute bowel obstruction symptoms, necessitating surgical intervention to excise the fibrous sheath and relieve the obstruction. Secondary SEP often occurs in patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis, with cessation of dialysis being a key component of management. Medical treatments, including corticosteroids, immunosuppressive agents, and nutritional support, may complement surgical intervention, particularly in cases of secondary SEP. Advanced imaging techniques and personalized medicine approaches show promise in improving diagnostic accuracy and tailoring treatment strategies to individual patients. Future research directions include investigating targeted pharmacological therapies, exploring minimally invasive surgical techniques, and conducting long-term follow-up studies to evaluate treatment efficacy and disease recurrence. Multidisciplinary care teams play a crucial role in the comprehensive management of SEP, emphasizing collaboration among various specialties to optimize patient outcomes.
  • Keywords: Peritoneal fibrosis; Abdominal cocoon; Peritoneal dialysis; Peritoneal diseases; Immunosuppressive agents
Sclerosing encapsulating peritonitis (SEP) is a chronic inflammatory disorder with an unknown etiology that is thought to arise from recurrent episodes of low-grade or subclinical peritonitis presenting without specific abdominal signs. Over time, this condition progresses to sclerosis and membrane formation, leading to the development of a cocoon-like structure [1].
The hallmark of SEP is a thick, grayish-white fibrotic membrane that partially or completely encases the small bowel and may extend to other intra-abdominal organs [2]. SEP is categorized into primary and secondary forms. Primary SEP, also referred to as abdominal cocoon syndrome, occurs in the absence of any identifiable associated conditions. In contrast, secondary SEP develops due to underlying conditions that lead to peritoneal inflammation and fibroblastic proliferation [3].
Early diagnosis of SEP is challenging due to the nonspecific nature of its symptoms. Therefore, radiological imaging is essential for the preoperative diagnosis of this condition [1]. Treatment approaches for SEP vary depending on the disease stage and type, ranging from conservative management to interventional procedures [4, 5]. This article offers a comprehensive review of the literature, including case series and reports, to explore the definition, etiology, clinical presentation, radiological manifestations, diagnostic methods, treatment options, prognosis, and histopathological features of SEP.
Peritoneal encapsulation
Peritoneal encapsulation, first described by Cleland in 1868, is a developmental anomaly marked by a peritoneal membrane [1]. This membrane, originating from the yolk sac peritoneum in early fetal life [6], typically lies between the mesocolon and omentum, with most of the small intestines located behind it. A distinctive aspect of peritoneal encapsulation is that it is not associated with inflammatory processes [1]. Cleland's 1868 description highlighted peritoneal encapsulation’s developmental origin, anatomical features, and noninflammatory nature [7].
Sclerosing encapsulating peritonitis
SEP is caused by peritoneal inflammation due to various factors [1, 5, 8]. Unlike peritoneal encapsulation, SEP is characterized by a dull, fibrous membrane with inflammatory cells encasing the intestines [9–11]. This thick fibrocollagenous membrane may partially or completely surround abdominal organs. The term "peritonitis chronica fibrosa incapsulata" was first used by Owtschinnikow in 1907 to describe SEP, which can be either primary (idiopathic) or secondary [12]. Idiopathic SEP, also known as "abdominal cocoon syndrome," was initially named by Foo et al. [13] in 1978. There are 3 types of abdominal cocoon syndrome, categorized based on the extent of the encasing membrane: types I and II involve part or all of the small intestine, while type III extends to other organs such as the appendix, colon, stomach, liver, and ovaries (Fig. 1) [8, 14].
Primary SEP
Primary SEP, often considered idiopathic, lacks a clear mechanism but is relatively common among young men in tropical and subtropical regions [1, 5, 12]. It may involve cytokines and fibroblasts in the development of peritoneal fibrosis and angiogenesis. Potential causes include retrograde menstruation, viral infections, retrograde peritonitis, and immune system damage, all of which can lead to inflammation and fibrosis [1, 15]. However, the presence of SEP in men, premenopausal women, and children poses challenges to these theories [2, 11]. Some researchers have suggested a possible link to vascular anomalies and omental hypoplasia [8].
Secondary SEP
Secondary SEP is more prevalent than idiopathic SEP and is associated with specific triggers that lead to peritoneal inflammation. The primary cause is peritoneal dialysis (PD), during which the peritoneum is damaged by prolonged exposure to PD fluids and bacterial peritonitis [16]. Some studies support the "two-hit" hypothesis for secondary SEP [5]. According to this model, the "first hit" involves noninflammatory peritoneal sclerosis due to repeated dialysis sessions [17]. Evidence for this is seen in the cumulative incidence of structural and functional changes in the peritoneal membrane, which are typically linked to SEP and show a significant increase as PD exposure continues [18]. The "second hit" is characterized by the action of proinflammatory and proangiogenic cytokines that progressively harm the peritoneum [17, 19]. The following cytokines may trigger secondary SEP:

  • • Transforming growth factor β1 (TGF-β1) [17]

  • • Interleukin-6 (IL-6) [17]

  • • Cellular communication network factor 2 (CCN2) [17]

  • • Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) [19]

  • • Endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS) [19]

Mesothelial cells may undergo a mesothelial-to-mesenchymal transition, causing a loss of their polarized cytoskeletal organization and cell-to-cell contacts [20]. As a result, they acquire a myofibroblast-like phenotype characterized by increased motility and the secretion of extracellular matrix compounds, and profibrotic and angiogenetic cytokines [20]. This cascade of events leads to the depletion of mesothelial cells, increased production of extracellular matrix components such as collagen type 1, alpha 1, fibrogenesis, and reduced fibrolytic activity of mesothelial cells [20]. Ultimately, these processes culminate in the formation of a fibrocollagenous cocoon [19]. In PD, genetic variations in the receptor for advanced glycation end products may predispose individuals to peritoneal deterioration [5]. Additional contributors to secondary SEP include abdominal tuberculosis, autoimmune disorders, drug use, ovarian disorders, abdominal surgery, peritoneal shunts, and fibrogenic foreign materials, as detailed in Table 1 [5, 16].
Due to its rarity and diverse causes, the overall incidence and prevalence of SEP are not well-documented. An analysis of 169 primary SEP cases described in 67 journals (Table 2) shows that most cases have been reported in tropical and subtropical regions, especially in Asia (73.4%) (Fig. 2). The average age of patients was 40.2 years, ranging from 7 to 90 years, with a male to female ratio of 3:1 (Fig. 3) [4, 6, 7, 9–12, 14, 15, 21–78].
For secondary SEP caused by PD, the annual incidence ranges from 0.5% to 7.3%, potentially reaching 17.2% in patients on dialysis for 15 years or more [16, 18]. Rigby and Hawley [79] observed incidence rates of 1.9%, 6.4%, 10.8%, and 19.4% in patients undergoing PD for 2, 5, 6, and 8 years, respectively. Recent studies have suggested that improvements in dialysis techniques may reduce the incidence of SEP [79].
Common presentation
SEP symptoms vary depending on the affected area and the organs involved. Common symptoms include intermittent pain (33.1%) and small bowel obstruction (57.9%), which results from the intestine being compressed by fibrous tissue (Fig. 4) [4, 6, 7, 9–12, 14, 15, 21–78]. This compression leads to symptoms akin to ileus, including abdominal pain, nausea, loss of appetite, vomiting, constipation, and weight loss. The diagnosis is supported by a history of symptoms that resolved spontaneously [16, 54, 58, 67, 77].
In the most extensive case series, symptoms persisted for an average of 3.9 years before a diagnosis was made, with many patients exhibiting signs of malnutrition [65]. Despite its chronic nature, 59.2% of the cases necessitated emergency surgery due to acute complications such as obstruction, ischemia, or perforation [70].
Case series data
Palpable masses and ascites may be detected in certain cases [48, 65, 75]. SEP remains asymptomatic in the majority of cases or is incidentally discovered during laparotomy [14, 32]. In pubescent female patients, presentations may include infertility or tube obstruction [6, 76, 77]. In rare instances, patients may present with a groin mass, mimicking a groin hernia [38, 46]. Since SEP is rare and lacks specific symptoms, physicians should be particularly cautious when patients have recurring abdominal pain without a clear cause.
SEP is a rare condition, both in its primary and secondary forms, and is frequently overlooked by physicians. Diagnosing it prior to surgery is challenging due to the nonspecific nature of early symptoms [8, 12, 15, 21]. A high degree of clinical suspicion and the use of imaging techniques are essential for an accurate diagnosis. In cases of secondary SEP, contributing factors may include abdominal tuberculosis, systemic lupus erythematosus, or PD [1, 37]. A review of 67 studies revealed that only 31% of primary SEP cases were correctly diagnosed before surgery [4, 6, 7, 9–12, 14, 15, 21–78]. Imaging studies play a crucial role in the diagnostic process. The use of biomarkers for secondary SEP remains a topic of ongoing debate [16, 18].
Imaging
Abdominal x-rays are frequently the initial choice for imaging due to their simplicity and ability to reveal nonspecific indicators of bowel obstruction, such as dilated loops, air-fluid levels, and occasional calcifications [1, 2, 8–10, 16, 37]. Barium studies can illustrate the small bowel as clumped and encased within a thickened peritoneum, producing a "cocoon" appearance and occasionally displaying a cauliflower sign [37]. However, these studies are impractical in cases of obstruction.
Ultrasonography is valuable in diagnosing SEP, as it reveals specific features such as a trilaminar bowel wall, bowel tethering, dilated and fixed loops, ascites, and membrane formation [8, 14, 61]. Although it can sometimes mimic an intestinal mass, in other instances, it may only display diffuse intestinal distention (Fig. 5) [7, 9, 22, 78].
Computed tomography (CT) scans significantly improve the diagnosis of SEP by providing a noninvasive and reliable method for early detection and management planning. Noncontrast CT imaging reveals small bowel loops clumped in the center of the abdomen, encased by a thick membrane, with features such as peritoneal calcification, thickening, fluid collections, and ascites [24, 26, 29]. Contrast-enhanced CT reveals a central accumulation of the small intestines surrounded by dense fibrous tissue (Fig. 6) [10, 43], with additional signs including intestinal obstruction, peritoneal or mesenteric thickening, small bowel wall thickening, fluid collection, and lymphadenopathy [10, 30, 41, 73]. Peritoneal thickening is often subjective, but a thickness over 2 mm is a useful threshold [37].
Recent research by Wang et al. [80] introduced a CT scoring system designed to predict surgical outcomes in SEP. This system evaluates 6 parameters: peritoneal thickening, peritoneal calcification, fluid loculation, tethering of the small bowel, and bowel wall thickening. A CT score of 15 or higher is associated with increased surgical mortality (area under the curve, 0.93; sensitivity, 88.9%; specificity, 82.1%). Patients with scores of 15 or above also exhibit higher mortality rates (61.5% vs. 4.2%, P<0.001), greater blood loss (400 mL vs. 50 mL, P=0.007), and a higher incidence of bowel perforation (61.5% vs. 12.5%, P=0.006) compared to those with lower scores.
Although magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can yield results similar to other imaging modalities, it is less commonly utilized due to its longer duration and impracticality in urgent scenarios, such as cases of clinical bowel obstruction presenting in the emergency room. The advantages of MRI include the avoidance of ionizing radiation and enhanced imaging of bowel encasement and peritoneal thickening [54, 80].
Biomarkers in SEP
There are no specific biomarkers for predicting primary SEP [5, 37]. Laboratory findings associated with primary SEP are nonspecific and can be influenced by various factors. In contrast, secondary SEP in PD patients is characterized by specific biochemical indicators, such as hemorrhagic effluent and elevated levels of anti-inflammatory mediators and coagulation markers, including IL-6 and fibrin/fibrinogen degradation products [81]. Proposed biomarkers for secondary SEP include serum β2 microglobulin (β2MG), IL-1, dermatopontin (DPT), gelsolin (GSN), and retinol binding protein-4 (RBP 4) [18].
Yokoyama et al. [82] found that using serum β2MG for SEP had a sensitivity of 64% and specificity of 80% at a cutoff level of 37 mg/dL. Lowering the cutoff to 30 mg/dL resulted in an odds ratio of 1. However, the direct pathophysiological link remains uncertain. To enhance clinical applications, future work should prioritize validating prognostic tools and biomarkers and developing streamlined diagnostic protocols that incorporate the most effective imaging techniques.
In primary SEP, there is no specific disease staging system; instead, the same staging system used for secondary SEP is applied. A staging system for PD-associated SEP has been proposed, which incorporates clinical, laboratory, and radiographic findings [83]. Nakamoto [83] categorized SEP patients into 4 stages: stage 1 (pre-SEP), stage 2 (inflammatory), stage 3 (encapsulating), and stage 4 (chronic). This classification is based on abdominal symptoms, inflammation, encapsulation, and intestinal observations (Table 3). Treatment strategies differ depending on the stage [18, 83]. In primary SEP, the progression can occur in a few months [45]. For instance, a case series from Türkiye documented 2 patients who developed clinical SEP shortly after undergoing surgery for other conditions: one developed SEP 2 months post-left hemicolectomy for sigmoid cancer, and another 1 month post-transabdominal hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy for endometrial cancer [45].
Histopathological analysis is essential for diagnosing SEP. Peritoneal biopsies generally reveal fibroconnective tissue proliferation, inflammatory infiltration, and dilated lymphatic vessels [1, 65]. Although these features are not unique to SEP, their presence, in conjunction with surgical findings, supports the diagnosis [69]. The absence of foreign body granulomas and giant cells is instrumental in distinguishing SEP from conditions such as tuberculosis [8, 19]. SEP is marked by dense sheets of collagenous tissue that encapsulate and constrict the small bowel, along with mononuclear inflammation [17, 19]. For instance, one case displayed ileal hemorrhagic infarction due to adhesions, fibrocollagenous fiber proliferation in the serosa, mesentery, and appendix, and chronic inflammatory cells (Figs. 7, 8). While these histological features may overlap with other peritoneal diseases, the identification of a thickened fibrocollagenous membrane within the clinical context usually confirms SEP. Nevertheless, the growing use of CT imaging and clinical assessments has reduced the dependence on histopathology for diagnosing SEP in contemporary medical practice.
Primary SEP

Surgical intervention

Most patients with primary SEP underwent surgery due to the risk of complications, with the goal of removing the fibrous sheath causing obstruction. In our analysis of 169 symptomatic cases, 104 (61.5%) underwent immediate surgery, while 64 (37.9%) initially attempted conservative management, which was unsuccessful, resulting in 168 patients (99.4%) eventually requiring surgery (Fig. 9).
Primary SEP demonstrated more favorable outcomes than secondary SEP, with a mortality rate of 3.6% compared to 45% to 82% in secondary cases [84]. Among the 168 patients who underwent surgery, 6 (3.6%) died, primarily due to sepsis and multiorgan failure, which were likely associated with preexisting conditions such as end-stage renal disease [4, 6, 7, 9–12, 14, 15, 21–78].
Noteworthy findings emerged regarding surgical techniques. Within the group of 168 operated patients, 7 (4.2%) did not undergo fibrous sheath excision. This was due to 2 primary factors. First, in 3 instances, the fibrous sheath was unexpectedly found during surgeries that were intended to address different medical issues [6, 38, 77]. Second, in 4 cases, severe adhesions made fibrous dissection unsafe, or the patient's overall condition did not allow for a lengthy procedure. Consequently, these operations were limited to histopathological examination or palliative interventions, such as the creation of an ileostomy [7, 45, 54, 55]. However, all patients in this latter group eventually succumbed to their conditions. Notably, 4 of the 6 deaths occurred in the group that did not receive fibrous sheath excision, representing 66.7% of the mortality cases. In contrast, only 3 of the 162 survivors (1.9%) were from this group. Therefore, surgical excision of the fibrous sheath should be considered when symptoms warrant it.
Postoperative complications included ileus, early postoperative small bowel obstruction [65], and surgical site infections (21.5%). Additional issues such as pulmonary infections, urinary tract infections, and small bowel obstructions were also reported, though none necessitated reoperation. Other documented morbidities encompassed intestinal fistula [14, 22], iatrogenic bowel injury [6, 31, 61], anastomosis leakage [46], and the creation of ostomies (ileostomy or gastrostomy) [28, 45, 50, 55, 58, 61, 72]. A technique developed by Li et al. [65], termed "intestinal stenting," involves the retrograde insertion of a tube from the appendix stump into the intestine. This method has been shown to significantly reduce both early postoperative small bowel obstruction and small bowel obstruction.

Follow-up

The duration of surveillance remains unclear. In this review, the mean surveillance period was 8 months, during which no recurrences were reported among the patients. However, 1 patient did experience a recurrence of primary SEP, having previously undergone surgery 2 years prior to the subsequent episode [61]. Most patients underwent clinical follow-up, with only 5 opting for gastrointestinal studies or CT scans. Therefore, a longer period of clinical follow-up appears to be prudent.
In conclusion, due to the progressive nature of primary SEP, surgical excision of fibrous tissue remains the primary option to prevent recurrence and associated complications. Further research into medical interventions such as immunotherapy is warranted.
Secondary SEP

Cessation of PD in PD patients

The initial step in managing secondary SEP among PD patients involves discontinuing PD to prevent further damage to the peritoneal membrane [85]. Although this approach seems rational, its effectiveness in reversing peritoneal fibrosis is still debated, possibly due to the absence of peritoneal lavage to remove fibrin, profibrotic factors, and cytokines [86]. An alternative method, as some authors suggest, includes keeping the catheter in place and performing regular peritoneal lavage for patients who have stopped PD; however, there is currently no conclusive evidence to support its positive effect on SEP progression [3, 85]. Withdrawing patients from PD after a SEP diagnosis poses challenges, especially considering the link between the duration of PD and SEP progression. We recommend transitioning from PD to hemodialysis and simultaneously removing the PD catheter [18, 87]. Although this approach seems logical, its efficacy is a matter of debate, as it does not consistently reverse the progression of peritoneal fibrosis and may lead to worsening symptoms [88]. The decision to discontinue PD demands careful evaluation of the benefits and risks, as most patients transition to hemodialysis, which involves its own set of complications, risks, and adjustments to lifestyle.

Nutrition improvement

Effective nutritional support is crucial in managing SEP, especially in advanced cases where there is a risk of malnutrition [89]. Patients who experience weight loss exceeding 10% are at increased risk [65]. Despite this, more than 60% of SEP patients struggle with reduced appetite and gastrointestinal symptoms [2, 85]. Nutritional support, whether provided parenterally or enterally, has been shown to improve postoperative outcomes [85]. The decision to initiate such support is critical, with research highlighting the significance of total parenteral nutrition (TPN) and dietary counseling. However, TPN alone does not have curative effects and increases the risk of infections, thus requiring careful monitoring of nutritional status through markers like albumin [89]. Assessment at the time of SEP diagnosis is vital, and although bowel rest and TPN alone may not be curative, they play a significant role in ensuring adequate nutrition. In situations where enteral feeding is not feasible, TPN is essential, as studies have shown that preoperative TPN administration can reduce complications and shorten hospital stays [5, 85, 87].

Medication for secondary SEP

Currently, there are no established protocols for treating secondary SEP, as most approaches are based on observational case reports [3, 5, 84–89]. Although some outcomes have been favorable, the evidence is limited to observational data.
Early intervention is recommended, focusing on glucocorticoids, tamoxifen, and immunosuppressive agents [3, 5, 84–89]. In cases of complications or delayed diagnosis, surgery is preferred. However, surgery does not stop peritoneal deterioration. Furthermore, symptoms may recur within 6 to 12 months [87] due to new fibrotic capsule formation, and surgery can also lead to new adhesions.

(1) Immunosuppressive drugs

The use of immunosuppressive drugs for treating SEP is not well-supported by evidence and lacks consensus, primarily due to the absence of targeted therapies and large-scale clinical trials. Immunosuppressive agents such as corticosteroids, azathioprine (AZA), mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), and mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors are frequently used, often in conjunction with corticosteroids [86, 90, 91]. However, these drugs carry a risk of infections, making it essential to confirm that patients are infection-free before initiating treatment. Additionally, the time required for these drugs to take effect renders them unsuitable for severe cases of SEP.
Corticosteroids are the primary treatment for secondary SEP, supported by numerous case reports with varying formulations, dosages, and durations [86, 90, 91]. They work by suppressing inflammation, preventing fibrin deposition, and inhibiting collagen synthesis, as well as by impeding the glucose-mediated induction of monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 (MCP-1) [18], which is crucial in reducing fibrosis in peritoneal sclerosis. Steroids also help prevent intraperitoneal fluid accumulation and the formation of ascites [85, 90]. Whether used alone or with other drugs, such as immunosuppressants, corticosteroids have shown success [86, 90, 91].
For example, Mori et al. [90] reported successful outcomes using corticosteroids alone, while Kuriyama and Tomonari [92] observed that patients treated with prednisolone experienced better outcomes than those who did not receive this treatment. However, corticosteroids alone may not be adequate for all cases; a 2004 multicenter study by Kawanishi et al. [93] revealed that only 38.5% of patients with secondary SEP could be managed with steroids alone.
The effectiveness of steroid treatment in SEP seems to vary depending on the disease stage, showing better outcomes in the early stages. In contrast, surgical intervention may be preferable in the advanced stages of SEP, where the inflammatory tissue tends to evolve into fibrosis, reducing the efficacy of medical therapy [87, 92]. While there are no established guidelines from controlled trials regarding the optimal dose and duration of steroid therapy, most literature suggests starting with a regimen of prednisolone at 0.5 to 1.0 mg/kg/day or administering a pulse dose of 500 to 1,000 mg of methylprednisolone for 2 to 3 days. This initial phase is typically followed by a continuation of 0.5 to 1 mg/kg/day for 1 month, then tapering the dosage based on clinical symptoms, aiming for a total treatment duration of at least 1 year [90–92].
Nonsteroid immunosuppressive drugs include AZA, MMF, and calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs). AZA, an immunosuppressive antimetabolite, has limited evidence supporting its use in SEP treatment compared to other drugs. Wong et al. [91] reported success using AZA in combination with corticosteroids. In a similar vein, Fagugli et al. [94] administered an initial dose of 100 mg of AZA, which was reduced to 50 mg after 2 months, in conjunction with prednisolone and colchicine. This regimen resulted in reduced symptoms and fibrosis. Additionally, Pepels et al. [95] found that combining AZA with prednisolone could decrease complications such as ascites following laparotomy. Despite these positive outcomes, AZA is not recommended as a standalone treatment but may be useful as an adjunct to steroids.
MMF, another immunosuppressant, exhibits antifibrotic properties by inhibiting specific cellular pathways without inducing TGF-β, a fibrogenic factor [86]. Recent studies involving rat models and patient cases indicate that MMF reduces peritoneal thickness, inflammation, and fibrosis, although the evidence is still limited [86].
CNIs, commonly used after transplantation, may exacerbate SEP by upregulating TGF-β1 and VEGF, which contribute to fibrosis and neoangiogenesis [18]. The mTOR inhibitors, such as sirolimus and everolimus, which regulate cellular metabolism and growth, have demonstrated some effectiveness in reducing peritoneal thickness and fibrosis [96]. Although case reports underscore their effectiveness when used in conjunction with steroids, a case series by Ghadimi et al. [96] reported clinical improvement in only 25% of SEP patients treated with mTOR inhibitors. The mTOR inhibitors are recommended as alternative treatments for SEP in post-transplant patients, particularly when transitioning from CNIs [18, 96].

(2) Tamoxifen

Tamoxifen was first successfully used in secondary SEP patients in 1992 [18], with subsequent reports indicating favorable outcomes when used alone or in combination with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants [18, 97]. A Dutch multicenter study reported significantly lower mortality rates in tamoxifen-treated SEP patients (45.8%) compared to those not treated with tamoxifen (74.4%) after 130 months, along with longer adjusted survival (hazard ratio, 0.39; P=0.056) [97]. However, a 2007 UK study involving 111 SEP cases from PD patients found no survival benefit, likely due to variability in treatment [98]. del Peso et al. [99] suggested that tamoxifen might prevent SEP, as none of the 23 patients who took it developed SEP, while 4 cases occurred in those who did not. A recent study by Liakopoulos et al. [100] reported the safety of long-term tamoxifen use (20 mg/day) for symptom prevention over 10 years, despite persistent SEP calcifications on CT scans.
Dosing and duration of tamoxifen treatment are not well-defined due to the lack of large clinical trials. Most studies administer daily doses ranging from 10 to 40 mg, with a clinical response typically observed within a year. Treatment should continue for at least one year and then be tapered, depending on the control of underlying conditions and the adequacy of the clinical response [18, 85, 97, 98, 100]. Potential side effects, such as hot flushes, nausea, fatigue, endometrial carcinoma, ischemic stroke, pulmonary embolism, and deep venous thrombosis, should be discussed with patients before initiating therapy [100].
SEP presents distinct challenges in both primary and secondary forms, necessitating tailored treatment strategies.
Primary SEP primarily necessitates surgical intervention to relieve intestinal obstruction caused by encasement in a fibrous sheath. The surgical removal of this fibrous sheath is essential, as it is associated with improved outcomes. Medical management options are limited, with only a few cases demonstrating success using drugs such as MMF and prednisolone. Follow-up data are inconclusive, highlighting the necessity for extended surveillance periods to prevent recurrence.
Secondary SEP management primarily aims to halt PD to protect the peritoneal membrane from further damage. Transitioning to hemodialysis and removing the catheter might be an option, though its effectiveness remains a topic of debate. Enhancing nutrition is essential, with nutritional support being critical for successful postoperative outcomes. Medical management typically involves the use of glucocorticoids, tamoxifen, and immunosuppressive agents, reserving surgery for cases of complications or delayed diagnoses. Histopathology is crucial for diagnosis, as it identifies distinctive features such as fibrous tissue proliferation and inflammatory infiltration.
Overall, treatment strategies for both primary and secondary SEP necessitate a multidisciplinary approach that takes into account individual patient characteristics and the severity of the disease. Further research into medical interventions is particularly warranted for secondary SEP, due to the limited evidence currently available.

Conflict of interest

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Funding

This study was partially supported by the Faculty of Medicine, Chaing Mai University (Chiang Mai, Thailand).

Author contributions

Conceptualization: PS, SS, ES, KW, RR; Data curation: WV, TJ; Investigation: WV, TJ; Methodology: SC; Supervision: PS, SS, ES, KW, RR; Validation: PS, SS, ES, KW, RR; Writing–original draft: WV, TJ; Writing–review & editing: all authors. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Fig. 1.
The categorizations of primary sclerosing encapsulating peritonitis (SEP) as (A) type I, (B) type II, and (C) type III. In type I and II cases, the membrane (depicted in gray) encapsulates a portion and the entirety of the small intestine, respectively. Type III SEP is characterized by a membrane (depicted in gray) encompassing the entire small bowel along with additional organs, such as the ovaries and colon. Illustration by Kraipop Wongwaiyut. Illustration by Kraipop Wongwaiyut.
ac-2024-00486-0069f1.jpg
Fig. 2.
Global distribution of primary sclerosing encapsulated peritonitis.
ac-2024-00486-0069f2.jpg
Fig. 3.
Sex and age distribution of primary sclerosing encapsulated peritonitis.
ac-2024-00486-0069f3.jpg
Fig. 4.
Primary symptoms of primary sclerosing encapsulated peritonitis in 169 cases.
ac-2024-00486-0069f4.jpg
Fig. 5.
Ultrasound examinations of the abdominal region in cases of primary sclerosing encapsulated peritonitis reveal widespread intestinal distension accompanied by the presence of ascites. (A) Distended small intestine. (B) Interloop ascites.
ac-2024-00486-0069f5.jpg
Fig. 6.
Whole-abdomen computed tomography with oral and intravenous contrast. (A) Thick membrane surrounding the small intestine. (B) Stacking dilated small bowel loops inside a thick membrane-like sac.
ac-2024-00486-0069f6.jpg
Fig. 7.
The ileum shows acute transmural hemorrhagic infarction (hematoxylin-eosin, original magnification ×20). The mucosa loses its epithelial cells with hemorrhage. The submucosal layer shows congested vessels. The muscularis propria shows smooth muscles with degenerated nuclei. The serosa shows fibrosis.
ac-2024-00486-0069f7.jpg
Fig. 8.
Areas of fibrosis with hemorrhage are observed in the mesentery, serosa of the vermiform appendix, mesoappendix, and peritoneum (hematoxylin-eosin, original magnification ×100). These areas are composed of fibroblasts, spindle-shaped cells with oval-shaped nuclei, with small new vessel formations are demonstrated among the thick pink collagenous fibers and scattered a small number of chronic inflammatory cells.
ac-2024-00486-0069f8.jpg
Fig. 9.
Treatment options for primary sclerosing encapsulated peritonitis in the 169 symptomatic cases.
ac-2024-00486-0069f9.jpg
Table 1.
Etiology of sclerosing encapsulating peritonitis
Etiology Description
Primary (idiopathic) Male to female ratio, 3:1
Most commonly reported in Asia
Secondary
 Medication β-Blockers: practolol, timolol, propranolol
Methotrexate
Antiepileptic drugs
 Infection Tuberculosis
Nontuberculous mycobacteria
Bacterial peritonitis
Cytomegalovirus
Fungus
Parasite
 Cirrhosis
 Protein S deficiency
 Organ transplantation Liver
Small intestine
Renal
 Rheumatologic/systemic inflammatory condition Sarcoidosis
Systemic lupus erythematosus
Familial Mediterranean fever
 Gastrointestinal tract neoplasm
 Gynecologic neoplasm Luteinized thecoma
Luteinizing granulosa cell tumor
 Mechanical or chemical irritation Peritoneal dialysis
Intraperitoneal chemotherapy
Ventriculoperitoneal shunt
Peritoneovenous shunt
Intraperitoneal iodine
Abdominal trauma
Intra-abdominal surgery
Foreign body
Talcum powder
Asbestos
Silica
Endometriosis
Dermoid cyst rupture
Recurrent peritonitis

Adapted from Danford et al. [5], available under the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial license.

Table 2.
Distribution of articles and number of cases with primary sclerosing encapsulating peritonitis according to countries
Country No. of publications (%) (n=67) No. of patients (%) (n=169)
Asia
 China 11 (16.4) 97 (57.4)
 India 4 (6.0) 4 (2.4)
 Pakistan 4 (6.0) 4 (2.4)
 Iran 3 (4.5) 3 (1.8)
 Nepal 3 (4.5) 3 (1.8)
 Thailand 1 (1.5) 3 (1.8)
 Qatar 1 (1.5) 2 (1.2)
 Saudi Arabia 1 (1.5) 2 (1.2)
 Bangladesh 1 (1.5) 1 (0.6)
 Iraq 1 (1.5) 1 (0.6)
 Korea 1 (1.5) 1 (0.6)
 Palestine 1 (1.5) 1 (0.6)
 Singapore 1 (1.5) 1 (0.6)
 United Arab Emirates 1 (1.5) 1 (0.6)
Europe
 Türkiye 12 (17.9) 21 (12.4)
 Greece 5 (7.5) 6 (3.6)
 Portugal 1 (1.5) 2 (1.2)
 Belgium 1 (1.5) 1 (0.6)
 Denmark 1 (1.5) 1 (0.6)
 North Macedonia 1 (1.5) 1 (0.6)
 Spain 1 (1.5) 1 (0.6)
 UK 1 (1.5) 1 (0.6)
America
 USA 4 (6.0) 4 (2.4)
 Brazil 2 (3.0) 2 (1.2)
Africa
 Tunisia 1 (1.5) 2 (1.2)
 Nigeria 1 (1.5) 1 (0.6)
 Somalia 1 (1.5) 1 (0.6)
 Sudan 1 (1.5) 1 (0.6)
Table 3.
Stages of secondary sclerosing encapsulated peritonitis with associated clinical, laboratory, and radiographic profiles
Stage Manifestation
Stage 1 (pre-SEP)
 Abdominal symptom Mild abdominal discomfort
 Laboratory finding Low albumin level
 Intra-abdominal finding Bloody dialysate (hemoperitoneum)
Ascites (mild to moderate)
Calcifications in the peritoneum
Mild inflammation
Encapsulation none present
Stage 2 (inflammatory)
 Abdominal symptom Mild to severe abdominal pain and encompass nausea, vomiting, anorexia, diarrhea, weight loss and systemic inflammation (fever)
 Laboratory finding Increased CRP, leukocytosis
 Intra-abdominal finding Ascites (mark)
Moderate to severe inflammation
Partial encapsulation
Stage 3 (encapsulating)
 Abdominal symptom Intermittent ileus
 Laboratory Restoration of normal inflammatory markers
 Intra-abdominal finding Ascites with forming mass process
Mild to moderate inflammation
Encapsulation present
Stage 4 (chronic/ileus)
 Abdominal symptom Persistent ileus, anorexia, and abdominal mass
 Laboratory finding Normal inflammatory markers
 Intra-abdominal finding Rigidity of the abdomen, fibrosis
None to mild inflammation
Encapsulation present

SEP, sclerosing encapsulating peritonitis; CRP, C-reactive protein.

  • 1. Akbulut S. Accurate definition and management of idiopathic sclerosing encapsulating peritonitis. World J Gastroenterol 2015;21:675–87. ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 2. Demir MK, Akinci O, Onur E, Koksal N. Case 108: sclerosing encapsulating peritonitis. Radiology 2007;242:937–9. ArticlePubMed
  • 3. Brown MC, Simpson K, Kerssens JJ, Mactier RA; Scottish Renal Registry. Encapsulating peritoneal sclerosis in the new millennium: a national cohort study. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2009;4:1222–9. ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 4. Karl AP, Leebmann H, Zorger N. Abdominal cocoon syn­drome. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2019;116:486.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 5. Danford CJ, Lin SC, Smith MP, Wolf JL. Encapsulating peritoneal sclerosis. World J Gastroenterol 2018;24:3101–11. ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 6. Hu D, Wang R, Xiong T, Zhang HW. Successful delivery after IVF-ET in an abdominal cocoon patient: case report and literature review. Int J Clin Exp Pathol 2013;6:994–7. PubMedPMC
  • 7. Bassiouny IE, Abbas TO. Small bowel cocoon: a distinct disease with a new developmental etiology. Case Rep Surg 2011;2011:940515.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 8. Tannoury JN, Abboud BN. Idiopathic sclerosing encapsulating peritonitis: abdominal cocoon. World J Gastroenterol 2012;18:1999–2004. ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 9. Mahmoud S, Salad AH, Abdullahi AA. Abdominal cocoon syndrome, a diagnostic challenge affecting the treatment. A rare case report from Somalia. J Surg Case Rep 2023;2023:rjad107.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 10. Karona P, Blevrakis E, Kastanaki P, Tzouganakis A, Kastanakis M. Abdominal cocoon syndrome: an extremely rare cause of small bowel obstruction. Cureus 2021;13:e14351. ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 11. Skarmoutsou AA, Pujante Antonatou A, Zekeridis T, Fiska A. Idiopathic sclerosing encapsulating peritonitis associated with persistent descending mesocolon: a surgical puzzle. Cureus 2023;15:e45679. ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 12. Hasnaoui A, Trigui R, Heni S, Ramdass PV. Abdominal cocoon: a rare case report of a small bowel obstruction. Int J Surg Case Rep 2023;111:108897.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 13. Foo KT, Ng KC, Rauff A, Foong WC, Sinniah R. Unusual small intestinal obstruction in adolescent girls: the abdominal cocoon. Br J Surg 1978;65:427–30. ArticlePubMed
  • 14. Wei B, Wei HB, Guo WP, Zheng ZH, Huang Y, Hu BG, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of abdominal cocoon: a report of 24 cases. Am J Surg 2009;198:348–53. ArticlePubMed
  • 15. Serafimidis C, Katsarolis I, Vernadakis S, Rallis G, Giannopoulos G, Legakis N, et al. Idiopathic sclerosing encapsulating peritonitis (or abdominal cocoon). BMC Surg 2006;6:3.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 16. Allam H, Al Yahri O, Mathew S, Darweesh A, Suliman AN, Abdelaziem S, et al. The enigma of primary and secondary encapsulating peritoneal sclerosis. BMC Surg 2016;16:81.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 17. Braun N, Alscher DM, Fritz P, Edenhofer I, Kimmel M, Gaspert A, et al. Podoplanin-positive cells are a hallmark of encapsulating peritoneal sclerosis. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2011;26:1033–41. ArticlePubMed
  • 18. Jagirdar RM, Bozikas A, Zarogiannis SG, Bartosova M, Schmitt CP, Liakopoulos V. Encapsulating peritoneal sclerosis: pathophysiology and current treatment options. Int J Mol Sci 2019;20:5765.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 19. Honda K, Oda H. Pathology of encapsulating peritoneal sclerosis. Perit Dial Int 2005;25 Suppl 4:S19–29. ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 20. Yang YM, Yang WX. Epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition in the development of endometriosis. Oncotarget 2017;8:41679–89. ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 21. Xia J, Xie W, Chen L, Liu D. Abdominal cocoon with early postoperative small bowel obstruction: a case report and review of literature in China. Medicine (Baltimore) 2018;97:e11102. ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 22. Santos VM, Barbosa ER, Lima SH, Porto AS. Abdominal cocoon associated with endometriosis. Singapore Med J 2007;48:e240–2. PubMedPDF
  • 23. Choudhury T, Kamal M. Abdominal cocoon: a case report with short review of literature. Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Med Univ J 2009;2:81–4. Article
  • 24. Hassine HB, Chaouch MA, Touir W, Jabra SB, Zouari K, Noomen F. A case report of idiopathic sclerosing encapsulating peritonitis causing an acute bowel occlusion in adult. Int J Surg Case Rep 2024;115:109249.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 25. Tajaddini A, Fallahi M, Haghshenas H, Nourmohammadi SS, Ghahramani L, Shahriarirad R. Primary abdominal cocoon syndrome manifesting with Chilaiditi syndrome and intestinal obstruction: a case report. Clin Case Rep 2023;12:e8363. ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 26. Hajimirzaei SH, Abbasi M, Alamdari NM, Besharat S, Farsi Y, Gharib A, et al. Chronic constipation and acute small bowel obstruction due to small bowel encapsulation: a case report. Clin Case Rep 2023;11:e8144. ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 27. Akın E, Altıntoprak F, Gönüllü E, Yılmaz F, Alper Yıldız Y. Coexisting of small bowel perforation and abdominal cocoon syndrome: a case report. Turk J Surg 2023;39:274–7. ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 28. McCrory MA, Heard MA, Wright JG, Roche KF. Sclerosing encapsulating peritonitis: a rare cause of bowel obstruction. Am Surg 2023;89:3496–8. ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 29. Jarrad B, Ayasa LA, Abboushi MB, Judeh KA, Almasry N, Hamayel KA, et al. Intestinal obstruction unraveled: a rare case of primary sclerosing encapsulating peritonitis. Cureus 2023;15:e42289. ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 30. Thambi VD, Kowtha P, Fatima A, Devarala B, Mushtaq J, Shariff S, et al. Abdominal cocoon syndrome, a rare cause of intestinal obstruction presenting in an Asian adult male: a case report. Ann Med Surg (Lond) 2023;85:986–9. ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 31. Mehmood M, Mirza AA, Sree GS, Vakkalagadda NP, Mumtaz H. Abdominal cocoon syndrome: a rare cause of mechanical intestinal obstruction: a case report. Int J Surg Case Rep 2023;103:107875.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 32. Zhou JL, Liu DQ, Lei JX, Zhao SF. Abdominal cocoon syndrome with unilateral cryptorchidism and seminoma: a case report. Asian J Surg 2023;46:878–9. ArticlePubMed
  • 33. Liang JL, Chen ZQ, Yi Z, Kun Ming W. A case report of encapsulating peritoneal sclerosis followed by cesarean section: clinical diagnosis and treatment experience. Medicine (Baltimore) 2022;101:e32122. ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 34. Alsadery HA, Busbait S, AlBlowi A, Alsawidan M, AlBisher HM, Alshammary S. Abdominal cocoon syndrome (idiopathic sclerosing encapsulating peritonitis): an extremely rare cause of small bowel obstruction: two case reports and a review of literature. Front Med (Lausanne) 2022;9:1003775.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 35. Ye Y, Cao L, Zhang Z, He M. Abdominal cocoon syndrome: an extremely rare cause of intestinal obstruction. Asian J Surg 2022;45:1868–9. ArticlePubMed
  • 36. Mousavi MA, Shaghaghi A, Sabouri M, Yousefian R. Abdominal cocoon syndrome as rare cause of intestinal obstruction: a case report. Int J Surg Case Rep 2022;98:107547.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 37. Chorti A, Panidis S, Konstantinidis D, Cheva A, Papavramidis T, Michalopoulos A, et al. Abdominal cocoon syndrome: rare cause of intestinal obstruction: case report and systematic review of literature. Medicine (Baltimore) 2022;101:e29837. ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 38. Wu S, Sun X, Yu Y, Wang J. Hernioscopy revealing rare abdominal cocoon syndrome in an elderly patient: a novel technique for abdominal pathology. Am J Case Rep 2022;23:e934617. ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 39. Agarwal S, Gaur K, Agrawal N, Puri A. Supernumerary remnant vas deferens like wolffian-derivatives in a young child with abdominal cocoon syndrome: a clinicopathological novelty. Pediatr Dev Pathol 2021;24:455–9. ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 40. Aziz W, Malik Y, Haseeb S, Mirza RT, Aamer S. Abdominal cocoon syndrome: a laparoscopic approach. Cureus 2021;13:e16787. ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 41. Ulusoy C, Nikolovski A, Öztürk NN. Difficult to diagnose the cause of intestinal obstruction due to abdominal cocoon syndrome. Eur J Case Rep Intern Med 2021;8:002588.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 42. Saqib SU, Farooq R, Saleem O, Moeen S, Chawla TU. Acute presentation of cocoon abdomen as septic peritonitis mimicking with strangulated internal herniation: a case report. Surg Case Rep 2021;7:93.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 43. Song WJ, Liu XY, Saad GA, Khan A, Yang KY, Zhang Y, et al. Primary abdominal cocoon with cryptorchidism: a case report. BMC Gastroenterol 2020;20:334.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 44. Lasheen O, ElKorety M. Abdominal cocoon or encapsulating peritoneal sclerosis: a rare cause of small bowel obstruction. Eur J Case Rep Intern Med 2020;7:001972.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 45. Akbas A, Hacım NA, Dagmura H, Meric S, Altınel Y, Solmaz A. Two different clinical approaches with mortality assessment of four cases: complete and incomplete type of abdominal cocoon syndrome. Case Rep Surg 2020;2020:4631710.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 46. Park GH, Lee BC, Hyun DW, Choi JB, Park YM, Jung HJ, et al. Mechanical intestinal obstruction following laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair in a patient with abdominal cocoon syndrome. J Surg Case Rep 2019;2019:rjz370.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 47. Saqib SU, Pal I. Sclerosing peritonitis presenting as complete mechanical bowel obstruction: a case report. J Med Case Rep 2019;13:310.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 48. Renko AE, Witte SR, Cooper AB. Abdominal cocoon syndrome: an obstructive adhesiolytic metamorphosis. BMJ Case Rep 2019;12:e228593. ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 49. Sovatzidis A, Nikolaidou E, Katsourakis A, Chatzis I, Noussios G. Abdominal cocoon syndrome: two cases of an anatomical abnormality. Case Rep Surg 2019;2019:3276919.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 50. Tolstrup J, Lauritsen ML. Abdominal cocoon syndrome in an eigth-year-old girl caused acute bowel obstruction. Ugeskr Laeger 2017;179:V05170380Danish. PubMed
  • 51. Mbanje C, Mazingi D, Forrester J, Mungazi SG. Peritoneal encapsulation syndrome: a case report and literature review. Int J Surg Case Rep 2017;41:520–3. ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 52. Altintas T, Sarıcı İŞ, Kalaycı MU. An association between transmesenteric internal hernia and abdominal cocoon syndrome: a case report. Int J Surg Case Rep 2017;30:194–6. ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 53. Fei X, Yang HR, Yu PF, Sheng HB, Gu GL. Idiopathic abdominal cocoon syndrome with unilateral abdominal cryptorchidism and greater omentum hypoplasia in a young case of small bowel obstruction. World J Gastroenterol 2016;22:4958–62. ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 54. Acar T, Kokulu İ, Acar N, Tavusbay C, Hacıyanlı M. Idiopathic encapsulating sclerosing peritonitis. Ulus Cerrahi Derg 2015;31:241–3. ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 55. Yavuz R, Akbulut S, Babur M, Demircan F. Intestinal obstruction due to idiopathic sclerosing encapsulating peritonitis: a case report. Iran Red Crescent Med J 2015;17:e21934. ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 56. Solmaz A, Tokoçin M, Arıcı S, Yiğitbaş H, Yavuz E, Gülçiçek OB, et al. Abdominal cocoon syndrome is a rare cause of mechanical intestinal obstructions: a report of two cases. Am J Case Rep 2015;16:77–80. ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 57. Uzunoglu Y, Altintoprak F, Yalkin O, Gunduz Y, Cakmak G, Ozkan OV, et al. Rare etiology of mechanical intestinal obstruction: abdominal cocoon syndrome. World J Clin Cases 2014;2:728–31. ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 58. Akbulut S, Yagmur Y, Babur M. Coexistence of abdominal cocoon, intestinal perforation and incarcerated Meckel's diverticulum in an inguinal hernia: a troublesome condition. World J Gastrointest Surg 2014;6:51–4. ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 59. Sharma D, Nair RP, Dani T, Shetty P. Abdominal cocoon: a rare cause of intestinal obstruction. Int J Surg Case Rep 2013;4:955–7. ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 60. Awe JA. Abdominal cocoon syndrome (idiopathic sclerosing encapsulating peritonitis): how easy is its diagnosis preoperatively? A case report. Case Rep Surg 2013;2013:604061.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 61. Solak A, Solak İ. Abdominal cocoon syndrome: preoperative diagnostic criteria, good clinical outcome with medical treatment and review of the literature. Turk J Gastroenterol 2012;23:776–9. ArticlePubMed
  • 62. Yeniay L, Karaca CA, Calışkan C, Fırat O, Ersin SM, Akgün E. Abdominal cocoon syndrome as a rare cause of mechanical bowel obstruction: report of two cases. Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg 2011;17:557–60. ArticlePubMed
  • 63. Chew MH, Sophian Hadi I, Chan G, Ong HS, Wong WK. A problem encapsulated: the rare peritoneal encapsulation syndrome. Singapore Med J 2006;47:808–10. PubMedPDF
  • 64. Matone J, Herbella F, Del Grande JC. Abdominal cocoon syndrome. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2006;4:xxxi.ArticlePubMed
  • 65. Li N, Zhu W, Li Y, Gong J, Gu L, Li M, et al. Surgical treatment and perioperative management of idiopathic abdominal cocoon: single-center review of 65 cases. World J Surg 2014;38:1860–7. ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 66. Jagdale A, Prasla S, Mittal S. Abdominal cocoon: a rare etiology of intestinal obstruction. J Family Med Prim Care 2017;6:674–6. ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 67. Abad Calvo P, de Diego Suárez M, Isnard Blanchar RM, Ojanguren Sabán I, Castellví Gil A. Abdominal cocoon syndrome: a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge: case report. Cir Esp 2015;93:e61–2. ArticlePubMed
  • 68. Mahajan N, Agarwal M, Khatri A, Siddiqui YM, Sengar M. Abdominal cocoon syndrome in a child with intestinal obstruction: a case report and literature review. J Pediatr Rev 2020;8:195–200. Article
  • 69. Shakya VC, Agrawal CS, Rajbanshi SK, Pradhan A, Khaniya S, Adhikary S. Abdominal cocoon in an adolescent male. Kathmandu Univ Med J (KUMJ) 2012;10:83–6. ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 70. Vipudhamorn W, Juthasilaparut T, Sutharat P, Sanmee S, Supatrakul E. Abdominal cocoon syndrome-a rare culprit behind small bowel ischemia and obstruction: three case reports. World J Gastrointest Surg 2024;16:955–65. ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 71. Alzarooni HA, Ribeiro Junior MA, Iddris SA, Alhammadi HB, DeSoucy ES, Alsayari AA. Sclerosing encapsulating peritonitis: a rare cause of small bowel obstruction. Int J Surg Case Rep 2023;112:108959.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 72. Frazão J, Martins AR, Calado J, Godinho A. Abdominal cocoon syndrome: a rare cause of intestinal obstruction. Cureus 2022;14:e22929. ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 73. Bozan MB, Kanat BH, Yazar FM, Kutluer N, Azak Bozan A, Aksu A, et al. A diagnostic dilemma for acute abdomen: sclerosing encapsulating peritonitis (abdominal cocoon syndrome); a retrospective cohort study. Arch Iran Med 2021;24:447–52. ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 74. Mohammed F, Abdulkarim M, Ibn Yasir A, Taleballah O, Shani D, Salih N. Abdominal cocoon syndrome, a case report of a rare disease entity causing intestinal obstruction. Int J Surg Case Rep 2021;87:106401.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 75. Singh AU, Subedi SS, Yadav TN, Gautam S, Pandit N. Abdominal cocoon syndrome with military tuberculosis. Clin J Gastroenterol 2021;14:577–80. ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 76. Pandey A, Karki C, Thapa M. Abdominal cocoon syndrome following primary subfertility management with IVF-ET. JNMA J Nepal Med Assoc 2018;56:808–10. ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 77. Cağlar M, Cetinkaya N, Ozgü E, Güngör T. Persistent ascites due to sclerosing encapsulating peritonitis mimicking ovarian carcinoma: a case report. J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc 2014;15:201–3. ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 78. Ceulemans LJ, Deferm NP, Deferm S, Willaert RA, Deferm JT, Vanhoenacker FM. Unusual cause of mechanical ileus: abdominal cocoon syndrome. J Belg Soc Radiol 2016;100:36.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 79. Rigby RJ, Hawley CM. Sclerosing peritonitis: the experience in Australia. Nephrol Dial Transplant 1998;13:154–9. ArticlePubMed
  • 80. Wang CJ, Chao YJ, Liu YS, Liao FT, Chang SS, Liao TK, et al. Prediction of surgical outcomes in severe encapsulating peritoneal sclerosis using a computed tomography scoring system. J Formos Med Assoc 2024;123:98–105. ArticlePubMed
  • 81. Hong KD, Bae JH, Jang YJ, Jung HY, Cho JH, Choi JY, et al. Encapsulating peritoneal sclerosis: case series from a university center. Korean J Intern Med 2013;28:587–93. ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 82. Yokoyama K, Yoshida H, Matsuo N, Maruyama Y, Kawamura Y, Yamamoto R, et al. Serum beta2 microglobulin (beta2MG) level is a potential predictor for encapsulating peritoneal sclerosis (EPS) in peritoneal dialysis patients. Clin Nephrol 2008;69:121–6. ArticlePubMed
  • 83. Nakamoto H. Encapsulating peritoneal sclerosis: a clinician's approach to diagnosis and medical treatment. Perit Dial Int 2005;25 Suppl 4:S30–8. ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 84. Kawanishi H, Moriishi M. Encapsulating peritoneal sclerosis: prevention and treatment. Perit Dial Int 2007;27 Suppl 2:S289–92. ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 85. Habib SM, Betjes MG, Fieren MW, Boeschoten EW, Abrahams AC, Boer WH, et al. Management of encapsulating peritoneal sclerosis: a guideline on optimal and uniform treatment. Neth J Med 2011;69:500–7. PubMedPDF
  • 86. Lafrance JP, Létourneau I, Ouimet D, Bonnardeaux A, Leblanc M, Mathieu N, et al. Successful treatment of encapsulating peritoneal sclerosis with immunosuppressive therapy. Am J Kidney Dis 2008;51:e7–10. ArticlePubMed
  • 87. de Sousa E, del Peso-Gilsanz G, Bajo-Rubio MA, Ossorio-González M, Selgas-Gutiérrez R. Encapsulating peritoneal sclerosis in peritoneal dialysis. a review and European initiative for approaching a serious and rare disease. Nefrologia 2012;32:707–14. ArticlePubMed
  • 88. Otsuka Y, Nakayama M, Ikeda M, Sherif AM, Yokoyama K, Yamamoto H, et al. Restoration of peritoneal integrity after withdrawal of peritoneal dialysis: characteristic features of the patients at risk of encapsulating peritoneal sclerosis. Clin Exp Nephrol 2005;9:315–9. ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 89. Hendriks MP, de Sévaux RG, Hilbrands LB. Encapsulating peritoneal sclerosis in patients on peritoneal dialysis. Neth J Med 2008;66:269–74. PubMedPDF
  • 90. Mori Y, Matsuo S, Sutoh H, Toriyama T, Kawahara H, Hotta N. A case of a dialysis patient with sclerosing peritonitis successfully treated with corticosteroid therapy alone. Am J Kidney Dis 1997;30:275–8. ArticlePubMed
  • 91. Wong CF, Beshir S, Khalil A, Pai P, Ahmad R. Successful treatment of encapsulating peritoneal sclerosis with azathioprine and prednisolone. Perit Dial Int 2005;25:285–7. ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 92. Kuriyama S, Tomonari H. Corticosteroid therapy in encapsulating peritoneal sclerosis. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2001;16:1304–5. ArticlePubMed
  • 93. Kawanishi H, Kawaguchi Y, Fukui H, Hara S, Imada A, Kubo H, et al. Encapsulating peritoneal sclerosis in Japan: a prospective, controlled, multicenter study. Am J Kidney Dis 2004;44:729–37. ArticlePubMed
  • 94. Fagugli RM, Selvi A, Quintaliani G, Bianchi M, Buoncristiani U. Immunosuppressive treatment for sclerosing peritonitis. Nephrol Dial Transplant 1999;14:1343–5. ArticlePubMed
  • 95. Pepels MJ, Peters FP, Mebis JJ, Ceelen TL, Hoofwijk AG, Erdkamp FL. Sclerosing peritonitis: an unusual cause of ascites in a patient with systemic lupus erythematosus. Neth J Med 2006;64:346–9. PubMedPDF
  • 96. Ghadimi M, Dashti-Khavidaki S, Khalili H. mTOR inhibitors for management of encapsulating peritoneal sclerosis: a review of literatures. Ren Fail 2016;38:1574–80. ArticlePubMed
  • 97. De Sousa-Amorim E, Del Peso G, Bajo MA, Alvarez L, Ossorio M, Gil F, et al. Can EPS development be avoided with early interventions? The potential role of tamoxifen: a single-center study. Perit Dial Int 2014;34:582–93. ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 98. Mesquita M, Guillaume MP, Dratwa M. First use of tamoxifen in an HIV patient with encapsulating peritoneal sclerosis. Clin Drug Investig 2007;27:727–9. ArticlePubMed
  • 99. del Peso G, Bajo MA, Gil F, Aguilera A, Ros S, Costero O, et al. Clinical experience with tamoxifen in peritoneal fibrosing syndromes. Adv Perit Dial 2003;19:32–5. PubMed
  • 100. Liakopoulos V, Georgianos PI, Vaios V, Roumeliotis S, Karligkiotis A, Zebekakis PE. 10-year-long survival in a PD patient with severe calcifying encapsulating peritoneal sclerosis treated with tamoxifen: a case-report. BMC Nephrol 2020;21:110.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF

Figure & Data

References

    Citations

    Citations to this article as recorded by  

      • Cite this Article
        Cite this Article
        export Copy Download
        Close
        Download Citation
        Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.
        Format:
        • RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
        • BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software
        Include:
        • Citation for the content below
        Unraveling the enigma of sclerosing encapsulating peritonitis: a comprehensive review
        Ann Coloproctol. 2025;41(3):175-189.   Published online June 18, 2025
        DOI: https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2024.00486.0069
        Close
      • XML DownloadXML Download
      Figure
      • 0
      • 1
      • 2
      • 3
      • 4
      • 5
      • 6
      • 7
      • 8
      Unraveling the enigma of sclerosing encapsulating peritonitis: a comprehensive review
      Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image
      Fig. 1. The categorizations of primary sclerosing encapsulating peritonitis (SEP) as (A) type I, (B) type II, and (C) type III. In type I and II cases, the membrane (depicted in gray) encapsulates a portion and the entirety of the small intestine, respectively. Type III SEP is characterized by a membrane (depicted in gray) encompassing the entire small bowel along with additional organs, such as the ovaries and colon. Illustration by Kraipop Wongwaiyut. Illustration by Kraipop Wongwaiyut.
      Fig. 2. Global distribution of primary sclerosing encapsulated peritonitis.
      Fig. 3. Sex and age distribution of primary sclerosing encapsulated peritonitis.
      Fig. 4. Primary symptoms of primary sclerosing encapsulated peritonitis in 169 cases.
      Fig. 5. Ultrasound examinations of the abdominal region in cases of primary sclerosing encapsulated peritonitis reveal widespread intestinal distension accompanied by the presence of ascites. (A) Distended small intestine. (B) Interloop ascites.
      Fig. 6. Whole-abdomen computed tomography with oral and intravenous contrast. (A) Thick membrane surrounding the small intestine. (B) Stacking dilated small bowel loops inside a thick membrane-like sac.
      Fig. 7. The ileum shows acute transmural hemorrhagic infarction (hematoxylin-eosin, original magnification ×20). The mucosa loses its epithelial cells with hemorrhage. The submucosal layer shows congested vessels. The muscularis propria shows smooth muscles with degenerated nuclei. The serosa shows fibrosis.
      Fig. 8. Areas of fibrosis with hemorrhage are observed in the mesentery, serosa of the vermiform appendix, mesoappendix, and peritoneum (hematoxylin-eosin, original magnification ×100). These areas are composed of fibroblasts, spindle-shaped cells with oval-shaped nuclei, with small new vessel formations are demonstrated among the thick pink collagenous fibers and scattered a small number of chronic inflammatory cells.
      Fig. 9. Treatment options for primary sclerosing encapsulated peritonitis in the 169 symptomatic cases.

      Fig. 1.

      Fig. 2.

      Fig. 3.

      Fig. 4.

      Fig. 5.

      Fig. 6.

      Fig. 7.

      Fig. 8.

      Fig. 9.

      Unraveling the enigma of sclerosing encapsulating peritonitis: a comprehensive review
      Etiology Description
      Primary (idiopathic) Male to female ratio, 3:1
      Most commonly reported in Asia
      Secondary
       Medication β-Blockers: practolol, timolol, propranolol
      Methotrexate
      Antiepileptic drugs
       Infection Tuberculosis
      Nontuberculous mycobacteria
      Bacterial peritonitis
      Cytomegalovirus
      Fungus
      Parasite
       Cirrhosis
       Protein S deficiency
       Organ transplantation Liver
      Small intestine
      Renal
       Rheumatologic/systemic inflammatory condition Sarcoidosis
      Systemic lupus erythematosus
      Familial Mediterranean fever
       Gastrointestinal tract neoplasm
       Gynecologic neoplasm Luteinized thecoma
      Luteinizing granulosa cell tumor
       Mechanical or chemical irritation Peritoneal dialysis
      Intraperitoneal chemotherapy
      Ventriculoperitoneal shunt
      Peritoneovenous shunt
      Intraperitoneal iodine
      Abdominal trauma
      Intra-abdominal surgery
      Foreign body
      Talcum powder
      Asbestos
      Silica
      Endometriosis
      Dermoid cyst rupture
      Recurrent peritonitis
      Country No. of publications (%) (n=67) No. of patients (%) (n=169)
      Asia
       China 11 (16.4) 97 (57.4)
       India 4 (6.0) 4 (2.4)
       Pakistan 4 (6.0) 4 (2.4)
       Iran 3 (4.5) 3 (1.8)
       Nepal 3 (4.5) 3 (1.8)
       Thailand 1 (1.5) 3 (1.8)
       Qatar 1 (1.5) 2 (1.2)
       Saudi Arabia 1 (1.5) 2 (1.2)
       Bangladesh 1 (1.5) 1 (0.6)
       Iraq 1 (1.5) 1 (0.6)
       Korea 1 (1.5) 1 (0.6)
       Palestine 1 (1.5) 1 (0.6)
       Singapore 1 (1.5) 1 (0.6)
       United Arab Emirates 1 (1.5) 1 (0.6)
      Europe
       Türkiye 12 (17.9) 21 (12.4)
       Greece 5 (7.5) 6 (3.6)
       Portugal 1 (1.5) 2 (1.2)
       Belgium 1 (1.5) 1 (0.6)
       Denmark 1 (1.5) 1 (0.6)
       North Macedonia 1 (1.5) 1 (0.6)
       Spain 1 (1.5) 1 (0.6)
       UK 1 (1.5) 1 (0.6)
      America
       USA 4 (6.0) 4 (2.4)
       Brazil 2 (3.0) 2 (1.2)
      Africa
       Tunisia 1 (1.5) 2 (1.2)
       Nigeria 1 (1.5) 1 (0.6)
       Somalia 1 (1.5) 1 (0.6)
       Sudan 1 (1.5) 1 (0.6)
      Stage Manifestation
      Stage 1 (pre-SEP)
       Abdominal symptom Mild abdominal discomfort
       Laboratory finding Low albumin level
       Intra-abdominal finding Bloody dialysate (hemoperitoneum)
      Ascites (mild to moderate)
      Calcifications in the peritoneum
      Mild inflammation
      Encapsulation none present
      Stage 2 (inflammatory)
       Abdominal symptom Mild to severe abdominal pain and encompass nausea, vomiting, anorexia, diarrhea, weight loss and systemic inflammation (fever)
       Laboratory finding Increased CRP, leukocytosis
       Intra-abdominal finding Ascites (mark)
      Moderate to severe inflammation
      Partial encapsulation
      Stage 3 (encapsulating)
       Abdominal symptom Intermittent ileus
       Laboratory Restoration of normal inflammatory markers
       Intra-abdominal finding Ascites with forming mass process
      Mild to moderate inflammation
      Encapsulation present
      Stage 4 (chronic/ileus)
       Abdominal symptom Persistent ileus, anorexia, and abdominal mass
       Laboratory finding Normal inflammatory markers
       Intra-abdominal finding Rigidity of the abdomen, fibrosis
      None to mild inflammation
      Encapsulation present
      Table 1. Etiology of sclerosing encapsulating peritonitis

      Adapted from Danford et al. [5], available under the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial license.

      Table 2. Distribution of articles and number of cases with primary sclerosing encapsulating peritonitis according to countries

      Table 3. Stages of secondary sclerosing encapsulated peritonitis with associated clinical, laboratory, and radiographic profiles

      SEP, sclerosing encapsulating peritonitis; CRP, C-reactive protein.

      Table 1.

      Table 2.

      Table 3.

      Ann Coloproctol : Annals of Coloproctology Twitter Facebook
      © Korean Society of Coloproctology.
      TOP