Remission of Type II Diabetes Mellitus after Duodenal Switch: the Contribution of Common Channel Length

3Citations
Citations of this article
8Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Introduction: The role of the common channel length in duodenal switch (DS) on remission of type II diabetes mellitus (DM), when stratifying patients based on diabetes severity, is not well understood. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 341 consecutive patients with DM undergoing DS with one of three different common channel (CC) lengths (100 cm, 150 cm, and 200 cm), each with a fixed 300 cm alimentary limb (AL). Patients were stratified by insulin dependence (IDDM) versus non-insulin dependent diabetes (NIDDM). Data was collected at one year and at the last available follow-up. Results: The NIDDM group had a similar average HbA1c at last follow-up for each of the CC lengths. However, the IDDM group had lower average HbA1c with shorter CC lengths (100 cm = 5.4%, 150 cm = 6%, 200 cm = 6.4%, p < 0.05). Shorter CC lengths resulted in a greater proportion of patients achieving remission in the IDDM group (66%, 50%, 32% in the 100 cm, 150 cm, and 200 cm CC, respectively, p < 0.01). Improvements in HbA1c were independent of weight loss and average DiaRem scores were similar between CC lengths. Rates of nutritional deficiencies were higher in shorter common channel lengths. Revision for malnutrition was similar between common channel lengths (100 cm group: 3.7%; 150 cm group: 1.8%; 200 cm group: 0%, p = NS). Conclusions: When the AL is fixed, shortening CC lengths results in improved glycemic control and remission of DM in patients with the need for insulin preoperatively. Milder forms of DM are treated well with any of the CC lengths. Graphical Abstract: [Figure not available: see fulltext.]

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Sharp, L. S., Sharp, W. T., & Ng, P. (2023). Remission of Type II Diabetes Mellitus after Duodenal Switch: the Contribution of Common Channel Length. Obesity Surgery, 33(12), 3841–3849. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-023-06870-2

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free