4.7 Article

The Subcutaneous Abdominal Fat and Not the Intraabdominal Fat Compartment Is Associated with Anovulation in Women with Obesity and Infertility

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM
卷 95, 期 5, 页码 2107-2112

出版社

ENDOCRINE SOC
DOI: 10.1210/jc.2009-1915

关键词

-

资金

  1. University Medical Center Groningen, The Netherlands
  2. ZonMW (Dutch government)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Context: Abdominal fat contributes to anovulation. Objective: We compared body fat distribution measurements and their contribution to anovulation in obese ovulatory and anovulatory infertile women. Design: Seventeen ovulatory and 40 anovulatory women (age, 30 +/- 4 yr; body mass index, 37.7 +/- 6.1 kg/m(2)) participated. Body fat distribution was measured by anthropometrics, dual- energy x-ray absorptiometry, and single-sliced abdominal computed tomography scan. Multiple logistic regression analysis was applied to determine which fat compartments significantly contributed to anovulation. Results: Anovulatory women had a higher waist circumference (113 +/- 11 vs. 104 +/- 9 cm; P < 0.01) and significantly more trunk fat (23.0 +/- 5.3 vs. 19.1 +/- 4.2 kg; P < 0.01) and abdominal fat (4.4 +/- 1.3 kg vs. 3.5 +/- 0.9 kg; P < 0.05) on dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scan than ovulatory women despite similar body mass index. The volume of intraabdominal fat on single-sliced abdominal computed tomography scan was not significantly different between the two groups (203 +/- 56 vs. 195 +/- 71 cm(3); P = 0.65), but anovulatory women had significantly more sc abdominal fat (SAF) (992 +/- 198 vs. 864 +/- 146 cm(3); P < 0.05). After multiple logistic regression analysis, only trunk fat, abdominal fat, and SAF were associated with anovulation. Conclusions: Abdominal fat is increased in anovulatory women due to a significant increase in SAF and not in intraabdominal fat. SAF and especially abdominal and trunk fat accumulation are associated with anovulation. (J Clin Endocrinol Metab 95: 2107-2112, 2010)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据