4.4 Article

The Change in the Percent of Android and Gynoid Fat Mass Correlated with Increased Testosterone After Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy in Chinese Obese Men: a 6-Month Follow-Up

Journal

OBESITY SURGERY
Volume 28, Issue 7, Pages 1960-1965

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11695-018-3116-0

Keywords

Obesity; Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy; Testosterone; Body fat distribution; Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry

Categories

Funding

  1. Chinese National Natural Science Foundation [81601269]
  2. Shanghai Sailing Program [16YF1408900]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective The study was designed to examine changes of body fat distribution after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) in obese male patients and to confirm whether these changes are correlated with increased testosterone. Methods A total of 30 obese male patients with body mass index (BMI) 30-45 kg/m(2) were enrolled in this study. Data on demographic characteristics, anthropometry, metabolic parameters, and body fat distribution were collected at baseline and 6 months after LSG. Body fat distribution was assessed by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Results Six months after surgery, the BMI of participants (age 33.0 +/- 9.5) decreased from 40.2 +/- 5.2 to 30.8 +/- 4.4 kg/m(2), total testosterone increased from 2.4 +/- 1.2 to 4.5 +/- 1.8 ng/mL, and the percentage of testosterone deficiency in these patients decreased from 82.7 to 23.1%. Fat mass was significantly decreased in all regions, but the loss of fat mass in the android region was more than that in any other body region. After adjusting age and the BMI, the changes in android FM% and gynoid FM% were significantly correlated with an increase in total testosterone concentration (R-2 = 0.187, R-2 = 0.282, respectively). Conclusion In obese male patients with BMI 30-45 kg/m(2), an increase of total testosterone correlated to the changes in android FM% and gynoid FM% at the sixth month after LSG surgery.

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