4.4 Article

Improvement of Health-Related Quality of Life After Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass Related to Weight Loss

Journal

OBESITY SURGERY
Volume 27, Issue 5, Pages 1168-1173

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11695-016-2468-6

Keywords

Health-related quality of life; Roux-en-Y gastric bypass; Weight loss; Impact of weight on quality of life-lite; RAND-36

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Effect of bariatric surgery on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) varies greatly. This might be caused by the diversity in questionnaires used to assess HRQOL and the weight loss of the studied population. This study assesses the relationship between weight loss and HRQOL in primary Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) patients by using an obesity-specific (impact of weight on quality of life-lite, IWQOL-lite) and a generic (RAND-36) questionnaire. HRQOL and weight parameters were assessed before and 15 and 24 months after RYGB surgery. HRQOL was assessed by using IWQOL-lite (an obesity-specific questionnaire consisting of one total score and five domains) and RAND-36 (a generic questionnaire consisting of two subtotal scores, the physical health summary (PHS) and mental health summary (MHS), and nine scales). Two thousand one hundred thirty-seven patients were included. HRQOL improved significantly after RYGB. Preoperative BMI was negatively related to baseline PHS (p < 0.001) and IWQOL-lite total (p < 0.001). Percentage total weight loss (%TWL) was positively related to HRQOL score at both follow-up moments. Change in HRQOL from baseline to 24 months was related to %TWL at 24 months in both subtotals of RAND-36 and IWQOL-lite total score (p ae 0.001 in all). HRQOL improves after RYGB. Higher %TWL is related to greater improvement in HRQOL and better HRQOL 15 and 24 months after RYGB. The variance in the effect of RYGB surgery on HRQOL can be explained by the questionnaire used and weight loss of the population.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available