BACKGROUND: Few studies have evaluated the impact of hybrid versus purely restrictive bariatric surgery on lipid profile, with the results being contradictory. The effect of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) and laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) on lipid profile was compared. METHODS: A nonrandomized prospective cohort study was conducted on severely obese patients undergoing bariatric surgery. Indication for the type of surgical procedure was based on clinical criteria. Patients on lipid-lowering drugs and those that could not be matched for age, sex, and body mass index were excluded. Finally, 51 patients who underwent LSG and 51 undergoing LRYGB completed this study. RESULTS: During the first year post-surgery, no differences in percentage of excess weight loss and triglyceride reduction were found between groups. After LRYGR, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol concentrations fell significantly (125.9 ± 29.3 to 100.3 ± 26.4 mg/dl, p < 0.001), whereas no significant changes were observed in the LSG group (118.6 ± 30.7 to 114.6 ± 33.5 mg/dl, p = 0.220). High-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol increase was significantly greater after LSG (15.4 ± 13.1 mg/dl) compared with LRYGB (9.4 ± 14.0 mg/dl, p = 0.032). Factors independently associated with LDL cholesterol reduction were higher baseline total cholesterol and undergoing LRYGB. A greater increase in HDL cholesterol was associated with LSG, older age, and baseline HDL cholesterol. CONCLUSIONS: LRYGB produces an overall improvement in lipid profile, with a clear benefit in all lipid fractions. Although LSG does not alter LDL cholesterol levels, its effect on HDL cholesterol is comparable to or greater than that obtained with malabsorptive techniques.
BACKGROUND: Few studies have evaluated the impact of hybrid versus purely restrictive bariatric surgery on lipid profile, with the results being contradictory. The effect of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) and laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) on lipid profile was compared. METHODS: A nonrandomized prospective cohort study was conducted on severely obesepatients undergoing bariatric surgery. Indication for the type of surgical procedure was based on clinical criteria. Patients on lipid-lowering drugs and those that could not be matched for age, sex, and body mass index were excluded. Finally, 51 patients who underwent LSG and 51 undergoing LRYGB completed this study. RESULTS: During the first year post-surgery, no differences in percentage of excess weight loss and triglyceride reduction were found between groups. After LRYGR, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol concentrations fell significantly (125.9 ± 29.3 to 100.3 ± 26.4 mg/dl, p < 0.001), whereas no significant changes were observed in the LSG group (118.6 ± 30.7 to 114.6 ± 33.5 mg/dl, p = 0.220). High-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol increase was significantly greater after LSG (15.4 ± 13.1 mg/dl) compared with LRYGB (9.4 ± 14.0 mg/dl, p = 0.032). Factors independently associated with LDL cholesterol reduction were higher baseline total cholesterol and undergoing LRYGB. A greater increase in HDL cholesterol was associated with LSG, older age, and baseline HDL cholesterol. CONCLUSIONS: LRYGB produces an overall improvement in lipid profile, with a clear benefit in all lipid fractions. Although LSG does not alter LDL cholesterol levels, its effect on HDL cholesterol is comparable to or greater than that obtained with malabsorptive techniques.
Authors: Henry Buchwald; Kyle D Rudser; Stanley E Williams; Van N Michalek; James Vagasky; John E Connett Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Amy Berrington de Gonzalez; Patricia Hartge; James R Cerhan; Alan J Flint; Lindsay Hannan; Robert J MacInnis; Steven C Moore; Geoffrey S Tobias; Hoda Anton-Culver; Laura Beane Freeman; W Lawrence Beeson; Sandra L Clipp; Dallas R English; Aaron R Folsom; D Michal Freedman; Graham Giles; Niclas Hakansson; Katherine D Henderson; Judith Hoffman-Bolton; Jane A Hoppin; Karen L Koenig; I-Min Lee; Martha S Linet; Yikyung Park; Gaia Pocobelli; Arthur Schatzkin; Howard D Sesso; Elisabete Weiderpass; Bradley J Willcox; Alicja Wolk; Anne Zeleniuch-Jacquotte; Walter C Willett; Michael J Thun Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-12-02 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: C Lubrano; S Mariani; M Badiali; M Cuzzolaro; G Barbaro; S Migliaccio; G Genovesi; F Rossi; M Celanetti; D Fiore; M M Pandolfo; P Specchia; G Spera Journal: Int J Obes (Lond) Date: 2010-04-20 Impact factor: 5.095
Authors: R H Knopp; H Gitter; T Truitt; H Bays; C V Manion; L J Lipka; A P LeBeaut; R Suresh; B Yang; E P Veltri Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Jussi Pihlajamäki; Sari Grönlund; Marko Simonen; Pirjo Käkelä; Leena Moilanen; Matti Pääkkönen; Elina Pirinen; Marjukka Kolehmainen; Vesa Kärjä; Sakari Kainulainen; Matti Uusitupa; Esko Alhava; Tatu A Miettinen; Helena Gylling Journal: Metabolism Date: 2009-12-16 Impact factor: 8.694
Authors: David Benaiges; Antonio Más-Lorenzo; Albert Goday; José M Ramon; Juan J Chillarón; Juan Pedro-Botet; Juana A Flores-Le Roux Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2015-11-07 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Pablo Vidal; José Manuel Ramón; Alberto Goday; Alejandra Parri; Xènia Crous; Lourdes Trillo; Manuel Pera; Luis Grande Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Thinzar Min; Sarah L Prior; Rachel Churm; Gareth Dunseath; Jonathan D Barry; Jeffrey W Stephens Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2020-01 Impact factor: 4.129