4.6 Article

Quality of life after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and changes in body mass index and obesity-related comorbidities

期刊

DIABETES & METABOLISM
卷 39, 期 2, 页码 148-154

出版社

MASSON EDITEUR
DOI: 10.1016/j.diabet.2012.10.008

关键词

Quality of life; Roux-en-Y gastric bypass; Morbid obesity; Post-surgery follow-up

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim. Dynamics of improvement in health-related quality of life (QoL) after bariatric surgery have never been fully assessed, and neither has the potential influence of body mass index (BMI) and comorbidity modification. The objective of this study was to investigate early and medium-term changes in QoL following Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), and their relationship to BMI and comorbidity variations. Methods. A total of 71 obese subjects (80% women, mean age 42.1 +/- 11.2 years, mean baseline BMI 47.6 +/- 6.2 kg/m(2)) undergoing RYGB filled in QoL questionnaires (SF-36) before and 3, 6 and 12 months after surgery. QoL was assessed using repeated-measures Anova, with associations between its changes and changes in BMI and comorbidities (diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidaemia, sleep apnoea, knee pain) assessed by mixed-effects models. Results. Physical QoL scales (physical component summary, PCS) significantly increased over time (from 38.9 +/- 9.3 to 52.6 +/- 7.9; P < 0.001). as did other physical SF-36 scales (all P < 0.001), whereas mental QoL summary scale did not vary significantly (from 45.7 +/- 9.5 to 48.6 +/- 11.5; P = 0.072). Major changes in QoL occurred at 3 months after surgical intervention to reach values comparable to those in the general population. PCS was mostly associated with changes in either BMI or comorbidity status except for diabetes, dyslipidaemia and sleep apnoea. Conclusion. Results show that improvements in physical QoL after RYGB are observed as early as 3 months after intervention, and are independently associated with weight loss and improvements in comorbidities. (C) 2013 Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.

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