4.6 Review

Outcome of bariatric surgery in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus: our experience and review of the literature

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-016-4901-2

关键词

T1DM; Obesity; Bariatric surgery; Glycemic control; Weight loss; Insulin requirements

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The beneficial effect of bariatric surgery (BS) in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients is well established. Conversely, little is known about the efficacy of BS in type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) patients, despite the increasing prevalence of obesity in this population. A retrospective review was carried out on a prospectively collected bariatric surgery registry of all patients undergoing BS at two university hospitals between 2010 and 2015. Patients with T1DM were identified, and detailed chart reviews were obtained. In this time period, we operated on thirteen patients with T1DM. Eight were female (61.5 %). Median age at time of surgery was 38 +/- 8.3 (range 28-53) years. The procedures performed were laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (n = 10) and laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (n = 3). On median postoperative follow-up of 24 (range 2.5-51) months, mean body mass index significantly decreased from 39.9 +/- 4.1 to 30.1 +/- 3.9 kg/m(2) (P < 0.0001) and insulin requirements were significantly reduced from 83.7 +/- 40.4 to 45.7 +/- 33.1 U/day (P < 0.01). However, there was no significant change in glycemic control assessed by HbA1C (P = 0.2). During the first months following surgery, three patients (21.4 %) experienced diabetic ketoacidosis, and four patients (28.6 %) reported more frequent episodes of hypoglycemia. Bariatric surgery in morbidly obese T1DM patients is an effective method for weight loss, leading to a remarkable improvement in insulin requirements. Larger prospective studies are still needed to confirm these findings, assess long-term effects of BS and better delineate its risk-to-benefit ratio in this growing population of morbidly obese patients with T1DM.

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

4.6
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