| Literature DB >> 27003699 |
Renate Kruschitz1,2, Maria Luger3,4, Christian Kienbacher5, Michael Trauner5, Carmen Klammer3, Karin Schindler3, Felix B Langer6, Gerhard Prager6, Michael Krebs3, Bernhard Ludvik3,7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Omega-loop gastric bypass (OLGB) results in weight loss (WL) but data on its impact on liver and glucose metabolism compared to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) is lacking. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the development of hepatic and metabolic markers as well as WL between the above-mentioned surgical groups during the first postoperative year.Entities:
Keywords: Gastric bypass; Liver parameters; Metabolic parameters; Morbid obesity; Weight loss
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27003699 PMCID: PMC4985536 DOI: 10.1007/s11695-016-2083-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Obes Surg ISSN: 0960-8923 Impact factor: 4.129
Evaluated liver, cholestatic variables, and weight loss of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and omega-loop gastric bypass from T0 to T12
| T0 | T3 | T6 | T12 |
|
|
| ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Mean | STD |
|
| Mean | STD |
|
| Mean | STD |
|
| Mean | STD |
| time | group | group × timea | ||
| GGT [U/l] | R | 24 | 45 | 56 | n.s. | 22 | 23 | 15 | <0.05 | 22 | 25 | 28 | n.s. | 24 | 24 | 30 | n.s. | <0.05 | <0.01 | n.s. |
| O | 25 | 33 | 14 | 23 | 36 | 28 | 22 | 33 | 33 | 20 | 23 | 18 | ||||||||
| TG [mg/dl] | R | 25 | 161 | 72 | n.s. | 23 | 125.5 | 34.6 | n.s. | 22 | 112.5 | 30.8 | <0.05 | 24 | 103.5 | 35.2 | <0.01 | <0.001 | n.s. | <0.05 |
| O | 25 | 125.4 | 54.4 | 25 | 135.7 | 54.4 | 22 | 94.3 | 18.4 | 21 | 74.9 | 21.5 | ||||||||
| Platelets [G/l] | R | 25 | 261 | 43.6 | <0.05 | 22 | 279 | 57 | n.s. | 22 | 275 | 60 | n.s. | 24 | 280 | 60 | n.s. | n.s. | <0.001 | n.s. |
| O | 25 | 294 | 54 | 25 | 266 | 53 | 22 | 270 | 58 | 20 | 274 | 67 | ||||||||
| PT [%] | R | 24 | 113 | 27 | n.s. | 22 | 110 | 26 | n.s. | 22 | 106 | 29 | n.s. | 24 | 113 | 29 | <0.05 | n.s. | n.s. | 0.05 |
| O | 25 | 125 | 16 | 25 | 103 | 20 | 22 | 104 | 19 | 20 | 97 | 17 | ||||||||
| hsCRP [mg/dl] | R | 24 | 1.6 | 2,4 | n.s. | 23 | 0.6 | 0.5 | n.s. | 22 | 0.6 | 1.1 | n.s. | 24 | 0.3 | 0.4 | n.s. | <0.001 | n.s. | n.s. |
| O | 25 | 1.0 | 0.6 | 25 | 0.9 | 1.3 | 22 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 20 | 0.2 | 0.4 | ||||||||
| Glucose [mg/dl] | R | 10 | 7.5 | 2.6 | n.s. | 7 | 5.4 | 2.1 | n.s. | 15 | 3.6 | 1.4 | n.s. | 20 | 3.4 | 1.3 | n.s. | <0.001 | n.s. | n.s. |
| O | 18 | 3.7 | 1.4 | 17 | 3.9 | 2.5 | 14 | 3.4 | 3.4 | 13 | 2.9 | 1.9 | ||||||||
| LF [%] | R | 24 | 1.1 | 0.4 | <0.001 | 22 | 1.1 | 0.3 | n.s. | 22 | 1.1 | 0.2 | n.s. | 24 | 1.0 | 0.3 | n.s. | <0.02 | n.s. | n.s. |
| O | 25 | 1.2 | 0.3 | 25 | 1.2 | 0.3 | 22 | 1.1 | 0.3 | 20 | 1.2 | 0.3 | ||||||||
| DRR [] | R | 25 | 99 | 16 | n.s. | 23 | 94 | 5 | n.s. | 22 | 90 | 7 | n.s. | 24 | 90 | 8 | <0.01 | <0.05 | n.s. | <0.05 |
| O | 25 | 99 | 10 | 25 | 94 | 9 | 22 | 86 | 8 | 21 | 86 | 11 | ||||||||
| Insulin [μU/ml] | R | 25 | 26 | 13 | <0.05 | 23 | 15 | 4 | <0.01 | 22 | 12 | 6 | n.s. | 24 | 10 | 5 | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. |
| O | 25 | 16 | 9 | 25 | 9 | 6 | 22 | 9 | 15 | 21 | 10 | 13 | ||||||||
| Weight loss [%] | R | – | – | 11 | 15.7 | 4.3 | 0.001 | 19 | 23.8 | 6.0 | <0.001 | 23 | 29.7 | 9.2 | <0.01 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.001 | ||
| O | – | 16 | 23.3 | 5.5 | 23 | 33.5 | 6.6 | 16 | 37.9 | 6.5 | ||||||||||
R Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, O omega-loop gastric bypass, GGT gamma-glutamyltransferase, TG triglycerides, PT prothrombin time, hsCRP high-sensitive C-reactive protein, LF liver fat, DRR De Ritis ratio, n.s. not significant
*T and Mann-Whitney U tests comparing RYGB and OLGB at baseline (T0), after 3 (T3), 6 (T6), and 12 (T12) months; **linear mixed model; time differences over time course, group differences within the groups, group × time changes over the time course and between group
Fig. 1Pre- and postoperative mean protein and albumin levels in patients with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (marked by a full line) and omega-loop gastric bypass (marked by a dotted line). T test comparing Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and omega-loop gastric bypass at baseline (T0), 3 (T3), 6 (T6), and 12 (T12) months. Linear mixed model (LMM), adjusted for baseline values, sex, and age for changes over time course, between groups, and changes over time course and between groups. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001; n.s. not significant
Fig. 2Pre- and postoperative mean AST and ALT levels in patients with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (marked by a full line) and omega-loop gastric bypass (marked by a dotted line). T test comparing Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and omega-loop gastric bypass at baseline (T0), 3 (T3), 6 (T6), and 12 (T12) months. Linear mixed model (LMM), adjusted for baseline values, sex, and age for changes over time course, between groups, and changes over time course and between groups. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001; n.s. not significant
Fig. 3Pre- and postoperative mean bilirubin and alkaline phosphatase levels in patients with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (marked by a full line) and omega-loop gastric bypass (marked by a dotted line). T Test comparing Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and omega-loop gastric bypass at baseline (T0), 3 (T3), 6 (T6), and 12 (T12) months. Linear mixed model (LMM), adjusted for baseline values, sex, and age for changes over time course, between groups, and dchanges over time course and between groups. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001; n.s. not significant
Fig. 4Pre- and postoperative mean HOMA2-IR and QUICKI levels in patients with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (marked by a full line) and omega-loop gastric bypass (marked by a dotted line). T test comparing Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and omega-loop gastric bypass at baseline (T0), 3 (T3), 6 (T6), and 12 (T12) months. Linear mixed model (LMM), adjusted for baseline values, sex, and age for changes over time course, between groups, and changes over time course and between groups. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001; n.s. not significant