| Literature DB >> 30257545 |
Eun Jeong Gong1, Do Hoon Kim2.
Abstract
Endoscopic bariatric therapies that emulate some of the principles of bariatric surgery have been developed as a less invasive option for the treatment of obesity and related comorbidities. Small bowel endoscopic bariatric therapies include bypass sleeves, incisionless anastomosis systems, and duodenal mucosal resurfacing. Clinical experience with small bowel devices suggests that endoscopic bariatric procedures can be safely implemented and that these devices are effective for both weight loss and metabolic improvement. Although the mechanisms behind these effects should be further elucidated, endoscopic bariatric therapies may be more effective and safer adjunctive interventions than lifestyle modifications and pharmacological regimens for patients with obesity or obesity-related comorbidities.Entities:
Keywords: Bariatrics; Endoscopy; Intestine, small; Obesity; Weight loss
Year: 2018 PMID: 30257545 PMCID: PMC6182290 DOI: 10.5946/ce.2018.153
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clin Endosc ISSN: 2234-2400
Fig. 1.Small bowel endoscopic bariatric therapies: (A) Duodenaljejunal bypass liner, (B) gastroduodenojejunal bypass sleeve, (C) incisionless anastomosis system, and (D) duodenal mucosal resurfacing.
Randomized Controlled Studies That Assessed Clinical Outcomes of Duodenaljejunal Bypass Liner
| Study Author (year) | Number[ | Age, yr | BMI, kg/m2 | Duration, weeks | HbA1c, % (preoperative) | HbA1c, % (postoperative) | %EWL |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rodriguez et al. (2009) [20] | 18 | 24 | |||||
| DJBL | 12 (12) | 45±7 | 38.9±5.9 | 9.2±1.7 | −2.4±0.7[ | ||
| Sham | 6 (6) | 51±13 | 39.0±7.2 | 9.0±2.0 | −0.8±0.4[ | ||
| Tarnoff et al. (2009) [21] | 39 | 12 | |||||
| DJBL | 25 (3) | 38.0±10.1 | 42.0±5.1 | 6.6 (range, 5.5–7.8) | 6.0 (range, 5.8–7.1) | 22.1±8[ | |
| Control | 14 (1) | 43.0±10.6 | 40.0±3.5 | 12.6 | 7.8 | 5.3±6.6[ | |
| Gersin et al. (2010) [22] | 47 | 12 | |||||
| DJBL | 21 (14) | 45±7 | 46±5 | 7.7±2.5 | 7.2±2.1 | 11.9±1.4[ | |
| Sham | 26 (12) | 43±10 | 46±6 | 7.6±1.3 | 6.8±0.2 | 2.7±2.0[ | |
| Schouten et al. (2010) [23] | 37 | 12 | |||||
| DJBL | 26 (8) | 40.9 (20–59) | 48.9 (39–60) | 8.8±1.7 | 7.7±1.8 | 19.0±10.9[ | |
| Control | 11 (2) | 41.2 (19–57) | 49.2 (37–60) | 7.3±0.1 | 6.9±0.6 | 6.9±6.1[ | |
| Koehestanie et al. (2014) [24] | 73 | 24 | |||||
| DJBL | 34 (34) | 49.5 (IQR 42–58) | 34.6 (IQR 32.4–38.1) | 8.3 (IQR 7.7–9.0) | 7.0 (IQR 6.4–7.5)[ | 32.0 (IQR 22.0–46.7)[ | |
| Control | 39 (39) | 49.0 (IQR 44–55) | 36.8 (IQR 32.6–42.0) | 8.3 (IQR 7.7–8.9) | 7.9 (IQR 6.6–8.3)[ | 16.4 (IQR 4.1–34.6)[ |
Data are presented as numbers, means±standard deviation, or median (range).
BMI, body mass index; HbA1c, glycated hemoglobin; EWL, excess weight loss; DJBL, duodenal-jejunal bypass liner; IQR, interquartile range.
Parenthesis: number of patients with diabetes mellitus.
Change in HbA1c level.
p<0.001,
p<0.05.