A Cabrera1, M Vives1, A Molina1, M París1, E Raga1, A Sánchez1, F Sabench2, D Del Castillo3. 1. Surgery Service, University Hospital of Sant Joan, Faculty of Medicine, IISPV, "Rovira i Virgili" University, Reus, Tarragona, Spain. 2. Surgery Service, University Hospital of Sant Joan, Faculty of Medicine, IISPV, "Rovira i Virgili" University, Reus, Tarragona, Spain. fatima.sabench@urv.cat. 3. Surgery Service, University Hospital of Sant Joan, Faculty of Medicine, IISPV, "Rovira i Virgili" University, Reus, Tarragona, Spain. ddcasdej@gmail.com.
Abstract
AIM: Laparoscopic gastric plication (LGP) is a bariatric surgical technique based on the anatomical principles of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG), but its effects on the metabolic profile are still uncertain. The aim of our study is to compare the changes in weight, metabolic parameters and gastric histology following intervention by gastric plication (GP) and sleeve gastrectomy (SG) in an experimental model of obesity. METHODS: To conduct the study, 32 8-week-old male Sprague-Dawley rats (Charles River®) were fattened by means of a cafeteria diet and randomly assigned to the following experimental groups: group 1: GP (n = 12); group 2: SG (n = 12) and group 3: sham (n = 8). RESULTS: Unlike the SG group, the GP group attained the weight of the sham group at the end of the experiment (week 16). The GP group continued to eat more cafeteria diet than the SG group. In addition, the SG group achieved better glycaemic control than the GP group. Significantly higher plasma ghrelin levels were observed at week 16 in the GP group than in the SG group (2.29 ± 0.5 vs 1.07 ± 0.4, p < 0.05), which also occurred for the glucagon plasmatic levels (62.71 ± 36.2 vs 24.63 ± 9.3, p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: GP is not as effective as SG and cannot be considered a metabolic surgery due to observed hormonal variations. The animals subjected to a GP continued to have a high appetite for the cafeteria diet unlike the animals submitted to an SG. Hormonal mechanisms possibly related to glucagon and ghrelin may be involved in this metabolic response.
AIM: Laparoscopic gastric plication (LGP) is a bariatric surgical technique based on the anatomical principles of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG), but its effects on the metabolic profile are still uncertain. The aim of our study is to compare the changes in weight, metabolic parameters and gastric histology following intervention by gastric plication (GP) and sleeve gastrectomy (SG) in an experimental model of obesity. METHODS: To conduct the study, 32 8-week-old male Sprague-Dawley rats (Charles River®) were fattened by means of a cafeteria diet and randomly assigned to the following experimental groups: group 1: GP (n = 12); group 2: SG (n = 12) and group 3: sham (n = 8). RESULTS: Unlike the SG group, the GP group attained the weight of the sham group at the end of the experiment (week 16). The GP group continued to eat more cafeteria diet than the SG group. In addition, the SG group achieved better glycaemic control than the GP group. Significantly higher plasma ghrelin levels were observed at week 16 in the GP group than in the SG group (2.29 ± 0.5 vs 1.07 ± 0.4, p < 0.05), which also occurred for the glucagon plasmatic levels (62.71 ± 36.2 vs 24.63 ± 9.3, p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: GP is not as effective as SG and cannot be considered a metabolic surgery due to observed hormonal variations. The animals subjected to a GP continued to have a high appetite for the cafeteria diet unlike the animals submitted to an SG. Hormonal mechanisms possibly related to glucagon and ghrelin may be involved in this metabolic response.
Authors: N Basso; D Capoccia; M Rizzello; F Abbatini; P Mariani; C Maglio; F Coccia; G Borgonuovo; M L De Luca; R Asprino; G Alessandri; G Casella; F Leonetti Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2011-06-03 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Adam P Chambers; Hilary E Wilson-Perez; Sean McGrath; Bernadette E Grayson; Karen K Ryan; David A D'Alessio; Stephen C Woods; Darleen A Sandoval; Randy J Seeley Journal: Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab Date: 2012-08-28 Impact factor: 4.310
Authors: H E Wilson-Pérez; A P Chambers; D A Sandoval; M A Stefater; S C Woods; S C Benoit; R J Seeley Journal: Int J Obes (Lond) Date: 2012-02-14 Impact factor: 5.095