Impact of Body-contouring Surgery Post Bariatric Surgery on Patient Well-being, Quality of Life, and Body Image: Saudi Arabia-based Cross-sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Body-contouring surgery is commonly performed to address functional and aesthetic issues that can arise following bariatric surgery. However, there is limited understanding of the psychological impact of this procedure on Saudi Arabian patients who have undergone bariatric surgery. This study aimed to explore the effects of body-contouring surgery on the psychological well-being, quality of life, and body image of individuals who have undergone bariatric surgery. Methods: This cross-sectional study assessed the psychological impact of body-contouring surgery by measuring levels of depression and generalized anxiety disorder using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) and the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) scale, respectively. Results: The study included a total of 227 participants, with 112 (49.3%) undergoing body-contouring surgery. Among the entire sample, 77.5% experienced excess skin folds following bariatric surgery. The prevalence of depression was 6% in the body-contouring group, lower than the 8% observed in the non–body-contouring group ( P = 0.073). Notably, anxiety was significantly lower in the body-contouring group, with a prevalence of 4% compared with 6% in the non–body-contouring group ( P = 0.006). Additionally, patients who had undergone body-contouring surgery reported higher scores for emotional well-being when compared with those who had not undergone body-contouring ( P = 0.011). Conclusions: The study suggests that body-contouring surgery improves the physical appearance of bariatric-surgery patients and reduces anxiety and depression, leading to improved psychological well-being. Further research, including larger and more diverse populations, such as multicenter studies at a regional or international level, is needed to validate these findings.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".