4.5 Article

Adipokine response in diabetics and nondiabetics following the Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: A preliminary study

Journal

JOURNAL OF SURGICAL RESEARCH
Volume 142, Issue 2, Pages 295-300

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2007.03.036

Keywords

morbid obesity; diabetic; gastric bypass; adipokine

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction. The adipocyte influences eating behavior and metabolism via cytokine secretion. We report our findings of adipokine secretion in a cohort of diabetic and nondiabetic morbidly obese patients before and after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). Methods. Ten morbidly obese subjects who underwent uncomplicated RYGB were studied: five were diabetic and nine were female. Nonfasting plasma levels of adiponectin, resistin, leptin, and tumor necrosis factor-alpha were determined preoperatively and 6 mo postoperatively. C-reactive protein (CRP) was followed as a marker of the metabolic syndrome. Results. The patient age was 42 +/- 11 y, and the preoperative BMI was 50 +/- 6 kg/m(2). The 6 mo BMI fell to 33 +/- 5 kg/m(2) (P < 0.0001), and there were no differences between diabetics and nondiabetics with respect to amount of weight loss. In nondiabetic patients, there were significant increases compared with preoperative levels for adiponectin, resistin, and tumor necrosis factor-alpha; leptin was significantly decreased while CRP was unchanged. CRP and leptin levels were both significantly lower (P < 0.05), while all other protein levels were unchanged in diabetic patients. C onclusions. At 6 mo postoperation, RYGB significantly altered most adipokine levels for nondiabetic patients. Only CRP and leptin were changed in diabetic patients. All patients lost a significant amount of weight over 6 mo, suggesting a different metabolic effect between nondiabetic and diabetic patients after RYGB. (C) 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available