Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 565

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Improvement in Glucose Metabolism After Bariatric Surgery: Comparison of Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass and Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy: A Prospective Randomized Trial

Peterli, Ralph, Wölnerhanssen, Bettina, Peters, Thomas, Devaux, Noémie, Kern, Beatrice, Christoffel-Courtin, Caroline, Drewe, Juergen, von Flüe, Markus, Beglinger, Christoph·2009·Annals of Surgery
DOI 10.1097/sla.0b013e3181ae32e3
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The exclusion of the proximal small intestine is thought to play a major role in the rapid improvement in the metabolic control of diabetes after gastric bypass. OBJECTIVE: In this randomized, prospective, parallel group study, we sought to evaluate and compare the effects of laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) with those of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) on fasting, and meal-stimulated insulin, glucose, and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) levels. METHODS: Thirteen patients were randomized to LRYGB and 14 patients to LSG. The mostly nondiabetic patients were evaluated before, and 1 week and 3 months after surgery. A standard test meal was given after an overnight fast, and blood samples were collected before and after food intake in both groups for insulin, GLP-1, glucose, PYY, and ghrelin concentrations. This trial was registered in www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00356213) before the first patient was randomized. RESULTS: Body weight and body mass index decreased markedly (P < 0.002) and comparably after either procedure. Excess BMI loss was similar at 3 months (43.3 +/- 12.1% vs. 39.4 +/- 9.4%, P > 0.36). After surgery, patients had markedly increased postprandial plasma insulin and GLP-1 levels, respectively (P < 0.01) after both of these surgical procedures, which favor improved glucose homeostasis. Compared with LSG, LRYGB patients had early and augmented insulin responses as early as 1-week postoperative; potentially mediating improved early glycemic control. After 3 months, no significant difference was observed with respect to insulin and GLP-1 secretion between the 2 procedures. CONCLUSION: Both procedures markedly improved glucose homeostasis: insulin, GLP-1, and PYY levels increased similarly after either procedure. Our results do not support the idea that the proximal small intestine mediates the improvement in glucose homeostasis.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/sla.0b013e3181ae32e3

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 9 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Peterli, R., Wölnerhanssen, B., Peters, T., Devaux, N., Kern, B., Christoffel-Courtin, C., Drewe, J., von Flüe, M., & Beglinger, C.
Venue
Annals of Surgery
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2009-08
Volume
250
Issue
2
Pages
234-241
ISSN
0003-4932 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1097/sla.0b013e3181ae32e3
OpenAlex
W2055711839
Cited by
565
References
9
FWCI
52.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.