4.4 Article

Sleeve Gastrectomy Does Not Cause Hypertrophy and Reprogramming of Intestinal Glucose Metabolism in Rats

期刊

OBESITY SURGERY
卷 25, 期 8, 页码 1468-1473

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11695-014-1547-9

关键词

Bariatric surgery; RYGB; Obesity; Intestinal adaptation; GLP-1; Hexokinase II

类别

资金

  1. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DIABETES AND DIGESTIVE AND KIDNEY DISEASES [R01DK047348] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NIDDK NIH HHS [DK047348, R01 DK047348] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Clinical studies have shown similar rapid improvements in body mass and glycemic control after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and vertical sleeve gastrectomy (VSG). Evidence suggests that adaptive intestinal tissue growth and reprogramming of intestinal glucose disposal play a key role in the beneficial effects on glucose homeostasis after RYGB, but it is not known whether such adaptive changes also occur after sleeve gastrectomy. High-fat diet-induced obese rats were subjected to either VSG or RYGB, and intestinal growth and functional adaptations were assessed by using morphometric, immunohistochemical, and immuno-blot techniques, 3 months after surgery or sham surgery. The cross-sectional areas of the Roux and common limbs are significantly increased after RYGB compared with sham surgery (Roux limb: 17.1 +/- 4.0 vs. 5.5 +/- 0.1 mm(2); common limb: 11.7 +/- 0.6 vs. 5.1 +/- 0.5 mm(2); p < 0.01), but the cross-sectional area of the corresponding jejunum is not different from controls after VSG. Similarly, mucosal thickness and the number of GLP-1 cells are not increased after VSG. Protein expression of hexokinase II is increased fourfold (p < 0.01) in the Roux limb after RYGB, but not in the jejunum after VSG. Adaptive hypertrophy and reprogramming of glucose metabolism in the small intestine are not necessary for VSG to improve body composition and glycemic control. The similar beneficial effects of VSG and RYGB on glucose homeostasis might be mediated by different mechanisms.

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

4.4
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