Rafael Alvarez1, Darleen A Sandoval2, Randy J Seeley2. 1. Department of Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Electronic address: rafalv@med.umich.edu. 2. Department of Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Metabolic surgery is safe and the most effective therapy for obesity and its co-morbidities. New procedures may allow for better tailoring of metabolic surgery to the individual patient. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact, comparative effectiveness, and mechanisms of the partial intestinal diversion (PID), vertical sleeve gastrectomy (VSG), and the combination of PID and VSG on weight and glucose regulation. SETTING: University research facility, United States. METHODS: Three cohorts of high-fat diet-induced obese male rats were randomized to distal PID (DPID), proximal PID (PPID), VSG, VSG and DPID (VSG/DPID), or sham operation (Sham). Animals were followed for 11 (cohort 1) or 10 (cohorts 2 and 3) weeks. Outcomes included weight and composition, food intake, glucose metabolism, lipids, bile acids, and energy balance. Statistical comparisons were performed using Tukey's multiple comparison test applied to analysis of variance. RESULTS: DPID and not PPID resulted in significant weight and body fat reductions relative to Sham. Improved glucose tolerance was seen in all surgical groups though this reached statistical significance for only DPID and VSG compared with Sham. Improvements in baseline glucose and insulin, corresponding insulin resistance, and plasma lipids were noted in DPID compared with Sham. Though the magnitude of weight and body composition changes and metabolic benefit tended to be larger for VSG relative to DPID, it only reached statistical significance for lipids. VSG and VSG/DPID resulted in similar outcomes. Markedly reduced food intake occurred after VSG and more modestly after DPID. Stool caloric content was higher in DPID relative to all groups. CONCLUSIONS: DPID is an effective metabolic operation resulting in notable weight and fat loss and metabolic improvement relative to sham-operated rodents. Interestingly, combining VSG with DPID added little additional benefit to the effects of VSG.
BACKGROUND: Metabolic surgery is safe and the most effective therapy for obesity and its co-morbidities. New procedures may allow for better tailoring of metabolic surgery to the individual patient. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact, comparative effectiveness, and mechanisms of the partial intestinal diversion (PID), vertical sleeve gastrectomy (VSG), and the combination of PID and VSG on weight and glucose regulation. SETTING: University research facility, United States. METHODS: Three cohorts of high-fat diet-induced obese malerats were randomized to distal PID (DPID), proximal PID (PPID), VSG, VSG and DPID (VSG/DPID), or sham operation (Sham). Animals were followed for 11 (cohort 1) or 10 (cohorts 2 and 3) weeks. Outcomes included weight and composition, food intake, glucose metabolism, lipids, bile acids, and energy balance. Statistical comparisons were performed using Tukey's multiple comparison test applied to analysis of variance. RESULTS:DPID and not PPID resulted in significant weight and body fat reductions relative to Sham. Improved glucose tolerance was seen in all surgical groups though this reached statistical significance for only DPID and VSG compared with Sham. Improvements in baseline glucose and insulin, corresponding insulin resistance, and plasma lipids were noted in DPID compared with Sham. Though the magnitude of weight and body composition changes and metabolic benefit tended to be larger for VSG relative to DPID, it only reached statistical significance for lipids. VSG and VSG/DPID resulted in similar outcomes. Markedly reduced food intake occurred after VSG and more modestly after DPID. Stool caloric content was higher in DPID relative to all groups. CONCLUSIONS:DPID is an effective metabolic operation resulting in notable weight and fat loss and metabolic improvement relative to sham-operated rodents. Interestingly, combining VSG with DPID added little additional benefit to the effects of VSG.
Authors: Tammy L Kindel; Paulo J F Martins; Stephanie M Yoder; Ronald J Jandacek; Randy J Seeley; David A D'Alessio; Silvana Obici; Patrick Tso Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2010-10-28 Impact factor: 5.002
Authors: Adam P Chambers; Lene Jessen; Karen K Ryan; Stephanie Sisley; Hilary E Wilson-Pérez; Margaret A Stefater; Shrawan G Gaitonde; Joyce E Sorrell; Mouhamadoul Toure; Jose Berger; David A D'Alessio; Stephen C Woods; Randy J Seeley; Darleen A Sandoval Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2011-07-12 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Maximilian Bielohuby; Kerstin Stemmer; José Berger; Juliane Ramisch; Kathleen Smith; Jenna Holland; Kenneth Parks; Paul T Pfluger; Kirk M Habegger; Matthias H Tschöp; Randy J Seeley; Martin Bidlingmaier Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Ruben Schouten; Carianne S Rijs; Nicole D Bouvy; Wim Hameeteman; Ger H Koek; Ignace M C Janssen; Jan-Willem M Greve Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Marie Ng; Tom Fleming; Margaret Robinson; Blake Thomson; Nicholas Graetz; Christopher Margono; Erin C Mullany; Stan Biryukov; Cristiana Abbafati; Semaw Ferede Abera; Jerry P Abraham; Niveen M E Abu-Rmeileh; Tom Achoki; Fadia S AlBuhairan; Zewdie A Alemu; Rafael Alfonso; Mohammed K Ali; Raghib Ali; Nelson Alvis Guzman; Walid Ammar; Palwasha Anwari; Amitava Banerjee; Simon Barquera; Sanjay Basu; Derrick A Bennett; Zulfiqar Bhutta; Jed Blore; Norberto Cabral; Ismael Campos Nonato; Jung-Chen Chang; Rajiv Chowdhury; Karen J Courville; Michael H Criqui; David K Cundiff; Kaustubh C Dabhadkar; Lalit Dandona; Adrian Davis; Anand Dayama; Samath D Dharmaratne; Eric L Ding; Adnan M Durrani; Alireza Esteghamati; Farshad Farzadfar; Derek F J Fay; Valery L Feigin; Abraham Flaxman; Mohammad H Forouzanfar; Atsushi Goto; Mark A Green; Rajeev Gupta; Nima Hafezi-Nejad; Graeme J Hankey; Heather C Harewood; Rasmus Havmoeller; Simon Hay; Lucia Hernandez; Abdullatif Husseini; Bulat T Idrisov; Nayu Ikeda; Farhad Islami; Eiman Jahangir; Simerjot K Jassal; Sun Ha Jee; Mona Jeffreys; Jost B Jonas; Edmond K Kabagambe; Shams Eldin Ali Hassan Khalifa; Andre Pascal Kengne; Yousef Saleh Khader; Young-Ho Khang; Daniel Kim; Ruth W Kimokoti; Jonas M Kinge; Yoshihiro Kokubo; Soewarta Kosen; Gene Kwan; Taavi Lai; Mall Leinsalu; Yichong Li; Xiaofeng Liang; Shiwei Liu; Giancarlo Logroscino; Paulo A Lotufo; Yuan Lu; Jixiang Ma; Nana Kwaku Mainoo; George A Mensah; Tony R Merriman; Ali H Mokdad; Joanna Moschandreas; Mohsen Naghavi; Aliya Naheed; Devina Nand; K M Venkat Narayan; Erica Leigh Nelson; Marian L Neuhouser; Muhammad Imran Nisar; Takayoshi Ohkubo; Samuel O Oti; Andrea Pedroza; Dorairaj Prabhakaran; Nobhojit Roy; Uchechukwu Sampson; Hyeyoung Seo; Sadaf G Sepanlou; Kenji Shibuya; Rahman Shiri; Ivy Shiue; Gitanjali M Singh; Jasvinder A Singh; Vegard Skirbekk; Nicolas J C Stapelberg; Lela Sturua; Bryan L Sykes; Martin Tobias; Bach X Tran; Leonardo Trasande; Hideaki Toyoshima; Steven van de Vijver; Tommi J Vasankari; J Lennert Veerman; Gustavo Velasquez-Melendez; Vasiliy Victorovich Vlassov; Stein Emil Vollset; Theo Vos; Claire Wang; XiaoRong Wang; Elisabete Weiderpass; Andrea Werdecker; Jonathan L Wright; Y Claire Yang; Hiroshi Yatsuya; Jihyun Yoon; Seok-Jun Yoon; Yong Zhao; Maigeng Zhou; Shankuan Zhu; Alan D Lopez; Christopher J L Murray; Emmanuela Gakidou Journal: Lancet Date: 2014-05-29 Impact factor: 79.321