RESUMO
Almost one third of patients do not achieve type 2 diabetes remission after bariatric surgery or are unable to sustain this effect long term. Our objective was to delve further into the dynamic responses of diabetes after bariatric surgery and to evaluate the "time-within-remission range" as a variable of metabolic control. A descriptive cohort study was done using a computerised multicentre and multidisciplinary registry. All data were adjusted by propensity score. A total of 1186 subjects with a follow-up of 4.5 ± 2.5 years were included. Type of surgery, diabetes remission, recurrence of diabetes, "time-within-remission range" and key predictors of diabetes outcomes were assessed. All patients (70% women, 51.4 ± 9.2 years old, body mass index (BMI) 46.3 ± 6.9 kg/m2) underwent primary bariatric procedures. "Time-within-remission range" were 83.3% (33.3-91.6) after gastric bypass, 68.7% (7.1-87.5) after sleeve gastrectomy and 90% (83.3-92.8) after malabsorptive techniques (p < 0.001 for all). Duration of diabetes, baseline HbA1c and insulin treatment were significantly negatively correlated with the "time-within-remission range". The association of bariatric techniques with "time-within-remission range", using gastric bypass as a reference, were: odds ratio (OR) 3.70 (2.34-5.84), p < 0.001 for malabsorptive techniques and OR 0.55 (0.40-0.75), p < 0.001 for sleeve gastrectomy. Characteristics of type 2 diabetes powerfully influence the outcomes of bariatric surgery. The "time-within-remission range" unveils a superiority of gastric bypass compared to sleeve gastrectomy.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The relative contribution of anthropometric, hormonal, and metabolic changes after bariatric surgery (BS) on sexual function (SF) in severely obese subjects is not well established. METHODS: Prospective observational case series study of 39 men undergoing BS. SF was assessed by means of the international index of erectile function (IIEF) before and at 1 year after surgery. At the same time points, anthropometric (body mass index, waist circumference), hormonal (testosterone, sex hormone binding globulin, estradiol, gonadotropins, inhibin B, prolactin, leptin), and metabolic parameters (insulin sensitivity, C-reactive protein, lipid profile, hemoglobin A1c, presence of hypertension or sleep apnea) were assessed. RESULTS: BS was associated with marked weight loss (77.18% excess weight loss), improved IIEF score (baseline: 54.85 ± 16.59, 1 year: 61.21 ± 14.10; p < 0.01), gonadal function (testosterone: baseline 256.36 ± 120.98, 1 year: 508.01 ± 161.90; p < 0.001), and improved metabolic profile. However, on multivariate regression analysis whereas changes in body mass index (beta: -0.677, p = 0.001), and baseline IIEF score (beta: -0.397, p = 0.023), were independent predictors of the changes in the IIEF score at 1 year after surgery, changes in hormonal and metabolic factors were not. Variables in the model accounted for 66% of the postsurgical variation in the IIEF score. Similar results were found when the different IIEF-sexual domains were evaluated, except for intercourse satisfaction for which no independent predictor was identified. CONCLUSIONS: Weight loss's beneficial effects on SF occurring after BS are beyond the parallel improvement in gonadal and metabolic profiles.
