Can Sleeve Gastrectomy “Cure” Diabetes? Long-term Metabolic Effects of Sleeve Gastrectomy in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to assess long-term metabolic effects of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and to identify predictive factors for long-term diabetes remission and relapse. BACKGROUND: LSG has become the most common bariatric operation worldwide. Its long-term metabolic effects in patients with T2DM are, however, unknown. METHODS: Outcomes of 134 patients with obesity with T2DM who underwent LSG at an academic center during 2005 to 2010 and had at least 5 years of follow-up were assessed. RESULTS: At a median postsurgical follow-up of 6 years (range: 5-9), a mean body mass index loss of -7.8 ± 5.1 kg/m (total weight loss: 16.8% ± 9.7%) was associated with a reduction in mean glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c, -1.3 ± 1.8%, P < 0.001), fasting blood glucose (-37.8 ± 70.4 mg/dL, P < 0.001) and median number of diabetes medications (-1, P < 0.001). Long-term glycemic control (HbA1c <7%) was seen in 63% of patients (vs 31% at baseline, P < 0.001), diabetes remission (HbA1c <6.5% off medications) in 26%, complete remission (HbA1c <6% off medications) in 11%, and "cure" (continuous complete remission for ≥5 years) was achieved in 3%. Long-term relapse of T2DM after initial remission occurred in 44%. Among patients with relapse, 67% maintained glycemic control (HbA1c <7%). On adjusted analysis, taking 2 or more diabetes medications at baseline predicted less long-term remission (odds ratio 0.19, 95% confidence interval 0.07-0.55, P = 0.002) and more relapse of T2DM (odds ratio 8.50, 95% confidence interval: 1.40-49.20, P = 0.02). Significant improvement in triglycerides (-53.7 ± 116.4 mg/dL, P < 0.001), high-density lipoprotein (8.2 ± 12.9 mg/dL, P < 0.001), systolic (-8.9 ± 18.7 mmHg, P < 0.001) and diastolic blood pressure (-2.6 ± 14.5 mmHg, P = 0.04), and cardiovascular risk (13% relative reduction, P < 0.001) was observed. CONCLUSIONS: LSG can significantly improve cardiometabolic risk factors including glycemic status in T2DM. Long-term complete remission and "cure" of T2DM, however, occur infrequently.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".