Abstract
Background
Bariatric surgery results in remission of type 2 diabetes mellitus in a significant proportion of patients. Animal research has proposed the foregut and hindgut hypotheses as possible mechanisms of remission of T2DM independent of weight loss. These hypotheses have formed the basis of investigational procedures designed to treat T2DM in non-obese (in addition to obese) patients. The aim of this study was to review the procedures that utilise the foregut and hindgut hypotheses to treat T2DM in humans.
Methods
A systematic review was conducted to identify the investigational procedures performed in humans that are based on the foregut and hindgut hypotheses and then to assess their outcomes.
Results
Twenty-four studies reported novel procedures to treat T2DM in humans; only ten utilised glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) in their definition of remission. Reported remission rates were 20–40 % for duodenal–jejunal bypass (DJB), 73–93 % for duodenal–jejunal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy (DJB-SG), 62.5–100 % for duodenal–jejunal bypass sleeve (DJBS) and 47–95.7 % for ileal interposition with sleeve gastrectomy (II-SG). When using a predetermined level of HbA1c to define remission, the remission rates were lower (27, 63, 0 and 65 %) for DJB, DJB-SG, DJBS and II-SG.
Conclusions
The outcomes of the foregut- and hindgut-based procedures are not better than the outcomes of just one of their components, namely sleeve gastrectomy. The complexity of these procedures in addition to their comparable outcomes to a simpler operation questions their utility.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Since the publication of the first report by Pories et al. [1] showing remission of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) after surgery, conventional bariatric procedures have shown benefit in controlling T2DM in patients with BMI >35 kg/m2. The mechanisms proposed for remission of diabetes are generally classified into weight loss dependent and non-weight loss dependent [2].
The improvement in control of T2DM after purely restrictive procedures such as laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) is largely dependent on and proportional to weight loss [3]. However, the case for weight loss-independent mechanisms is strong and based on three observations: firstly, rapid improvement in diabetes after certain types of bariatric surgery [4]; secondly, greater diabetic improvement after certain types of bariatric surgery than with equivalent weight loss from other interventions [5–8]; thirdly, cases of late hyperinsulinaemic hypoglycaemia [2].
Based on these observations, several mechanisms have been proposed to explain the weight-independent improvement and remission of diabetes after bariatric and metabolic surgery. It is postulated that bariatric surgery works through modulation of bile acids, gut microbiota or incretins to alter weight and/or insulin sensitivity. The most popular hypotheses continue to be the foregut and hindgut theories based on modulation of incretins. Both theories are strongly supported by evidence from animal studies [9, 10]. The foregut theory proposes that food bypassing the duodenum leads to a decrease in unknown anti-incretin hormones which leads to improved insulin sensitivity [11, 12]. The hindgut theory states that early exposure of undigested food to the hindgut leads to increased secretion of incretins with subsequent improvement in glycaemic control [13, 14].
New surgical procedures have been designed on the basis of these theories to achieve glycaemic control in non-obese T2DM patients whilst reducing morbidity and exerting a minimal effect on weight.
This article aims to systematically review the literature describing these investigational surgeries designed to treat T2DM in obese as well as the ‘non-morbidly obese’. The study evaluates the usefulness and validity of the ‘foregut’ and ‘hindgut’ hypotheses in improving glycaemic control.
Materials and methods
A two-stage systematic review of the literature was performed. The first stage aimed to identify investigational procedures based on the foregut or hindgut theories. The second stage ascertained outcomes of these operations in humans with emphasis on their outcomes in the treatment of T2DM. Using the National Health Service (NHS) evidence advanced search facility (HDAS), we searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, British Nursing Index and AMED. The first stage of the search included the following terms: (foregut or hindgut) and diabetes. After identifying the relevant procedures, we searched the same databases for these procedures. There was no time limit on the search. The inclusion criteria are as follows: procedures based on the foregut and hindgut theories, human studies, articles written in the English language, no duplication of data. Exclusion criteria used in this study are animal studies, conference abstracts, articles not written in the English language, short-term objectives, review articles and duplication of data.
Two authors reviewed the abstracts independently. A full-text article for each relevant article was obtained, and manual cross-referencing from the bibliography was performed to ensure inclusion of all of the relevant related literature. Following this, relevant data were extracted from each paper. The data extracted are study design, procedures included in the study, inclusion criteria, successful implant, number of patients with T2DM, number of patients with T2DM completing follow-up, follow-up, baseline mean body mass index (BMI) kg/m2, follow-up mean BMI kg/m2, percentage excess weight loss, pre- and post-operative fasting glucose (mg/dl), pre- and post-operative HbA1c, definition of remission of diabetes in the paper and remission rate.
Blood glucose is expressed in the conventional units (mg/dl) for simplicity of comparison and where necessary has been converted from SI units (mmol/l) by multiplying it by the conversion factor 18.
The World Health Organization (WHO) classification of obesity was used to improve uniformity in comparing studies [15]. BMI cut-off points of 23, 27.5, 32.5 and 37.5 kg/m2 (corresponding to BMI 25, 30, 35 and 40 of the WHO classification) have been added as points for the Asian population [16].
The American Diabetes Association’s [17] definitions of remission of T2DM are used in the manuscript. Partial remission is HbA1c <6.5 %, fasting glucose 100–125 mg/dl (5.6–6.9 mmol/l)of at least 1 year’s duration in the absence of active pharmacological therapy. Complete remission is a return to ‘normal’ measures of glucose metabolism (HbA1c in the normal range, fasting glucose <100 mg/dl or 5.6 mmol/l)of at least 1 year’s duration in the absence of active pharmacological therapy.
Results
Data retrieval
The initial literature search identified a total of 293 papers for screening. After electronic and manual de-duplication, 177 papers were identified. Of these, 146 papers were excluded after review of the abstracts. The remaining 31 papers were fully reviewed. Subsequently, seven papers were excluded due to duplication of data and a further four papers were excluded as they were found to be reviews with no extra original data. After manual cross-referencing, no new papers were identified that met the inclusion criteria. Finally, 24 papers were included in this systematic review. Figure 1 shows a flow diagram of the review process.
Three types of surgical procedures that utilised the principles of the foregut and hindgut theory to treat T2DM in humans were identified which are duodenal–jejunal bypass (DJB), duodenal–jejunal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy (DJB-SG), endoscopic DJB sleeve (DJBS), ileal interposition with sleeve gastrectomy (II-SG).
A total of 24 papers were included that offered a novel surgery to a total of 921 patients with T2DM (Fig. 1).
Systematic review of the procedures
Duodenal–jejunal bypass (Fig. 2)
Technical details
The duodenum is transected 1–2 cm below the pylorus, and the jejunum is transected 50 cm from the ligament of Treitz. The distal end of the jejunum is anastomosed end-to-end to the duodenum and the proximal end is anastomosed end-to-side to the jejunum, 80 cm from the duodenojejunostomy. SG is added to this operation in some studies.
Morbidity and mortality
One death secondary to pulmonary embolism [18] and one major post-operative complication in the form of stricture of gastric tube [19] were reported. This was treated with stricturoplasty.
Transient post-operative nausea and vomiting were the most commonly reported minor complications ranging from 20 to 42 % [18, 20, 21] Other rare complications were marginal ulcer, ileus, pancreatitis and late bowel obstruction.
Outcomes of glycaemic control
In nine small studies, 123 patients (all diabetic and BMI <35 kg/m2) underwent DJB and 60 had DJB-SG (48 were diabetic and had BMI >32 kg/m2 as per Asian guidelines for bariatric surgery). Following DJB, reported diabetes remission rate was between 16 and 100 % (see Table 1). Diabetes remission rate was 73–91 % after DJB-SG. When using the more universally acceptable definition of remission, the remission rate was 27 % in DJB and 63 % in DJB-SG (Table 2).
Only one study reported a fall in HbA1c within 1 month [22]. The rest of the studies reported remission at 6 months or later making it difficult to confirm whether it was independent of or secondary to weight loss.
Endoscopic DJB sleeve (Fig. 3)
Technical details
The DJBS is a single-use endoscopic device, deployed under radiological guidance. The device is composed of tiny nitinol lateral barbs for anchoring and an impermeable plastic conduit that prevents contact of the chyme with bile–pancreatic secretions up to the proximal jejunum. The procedure is performed under general anaesthesia. The device is introduced over a guide wire, and the plastic conduit is stretched to overlay the duodenum and the proximal region of the jejunum. After correct positioning, the anchoring system is freed setting the device in the duodenal bulb. A contrast study is performed to verify the position of device and to rule out obstruction within the plastic conduit.
Morbidity and mortality
No major morbidity or mortality is reported in any of the studies performed. Reported procedure-related minor complications include upper abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, flatulence, oesophagitis, gastritis, erosive duodenitis, constipation, diarrhoea.
Outcomes of glycaemic control
A total of 180 patients with T2DM were described in nine articles. All of the studies included patients with an average BMI >30 kg/m2. The remission rate of diabetes was 62.5–100 % (Table 3). One small study defined remission as normalisation of fasting plasma glucose or HbA1c and no ADM. This study showed a remission rate of 75 % (n = 4) [23]. This study, however, did not define the level of HbA1c that was considered to be normal. It was therefore impossible to discern whether there was a significant difference in regards to remission of diabetes between the gastro-duodenojejunal sleeve (starting at gastro-oesophageal junction) and DJB sleeves due to different definitions of remission of diabetes. The rate of remission of diabetes after insertion of endoscopic sleeves was assessed regularly in three studies [23–25]. Two of these three studies reported remission of diabetes within one week [24, 25]. One study showed remission of diabetes within 24 h. These changes do not seem to be associated with weight loss [23].
None of the studies that performed DJBS used ‘predetermined HbA1c level and no ADM’ as the remission criteria. We were unable to provide a synthesised or non-synthesised remission rate after DJBS.
Ileal interposition (Fig. 4)
Technical details
After performing SG, devascularisation of the greater curvature of the stomach is continued to the duodenum 3–4 cm beyond the pylorus. Two techniques were used. The first is ileal interposition with diverting SG. The duodenum is transected using a 60-mm linear stapler. The proximal cut end is delivered in the infracolic compartment through a mesenteric window in the transverse mesocolon. An ileal segment of 150 cm is created 50 cm proximal to the ileocecal valve. This segment is anastomosed peristaltically to the delivered first portion of the duodenum. The jejunum at 50 cm from the ligament of Treitz is anastomosed to the distal end of the interposed ileum.
The second technique is ileal interposition with SG (non-diverting). The ileal segment is created as above. This segment is then interposed in the jejunum 30 cm from the ligament of Treitz.
Morbidity and mortality
Early (0.99 %) and late (1 %) mortality is reported by DePaula et al. [26]. Acute renal failure and dehiscence of Meckel’s diverticulectomy were the causes of early mortality. Late mortality was related to intestinal obstruction and Guillian–Barre syndrome secondary to advanced renal disease. In the same series, authors report 2.5 % reoperation rate, 8.4 % early major complications (pneumonia, ileus, gastrointestinal bleeding, myocardial infarction, acute renal failure, cardiac arrhythmia, intra-abdominal abscess, urinary tract infection) and 3.5 % late major complications (vomiting, abdominal wall infection, intra-abdominal bleeding, intestinal obstruction, stricture of gastric tube). In their previous study, the authors reported 5 (7.3 %) major complications, namely fistula requiring reoperation (n = 1), GI bleed (n = 1), urinary tract infection (n = 1), pneumonia (n = 2) [27]. No major morbidity or mortality is reported by any other group.
Outcomes of glycaemic control
Six studies have reported II-SG on 474 patients, 381 of which were diabetic [26–31]. The studies reported variable success rates of 47–95.7 % for T2DM remission (Table 4). When using the more universally acceptable definition of remission (predetermined HbA1c level at least <7 with no use of ADMs), the cumulative remission rate was 77.8 % (Table 5).
Review of study characteristics and variables
Demographic and types of studies
Of the 24 articles, 15 of these studies were based in South America and the other studies were based in other parts of the world, North America, Netherlands, India, China and Korea. Two of the studies were randomised controlled trials, five were non-randomised controlled trials or series with comparison groups, 16 were case studies, and one article was a case report. All of the studies were conducted at single centres (n = 23) except for one which was a multicentre study.
BMI range
The authors of 11 articles offered surgery to patients with a BMI less than 35 kg/m2 [18, 20–22, 26, 27, 29, 31–34], and the authors of 7 articles offered surgery to patients with a BMI greater than 35 kg/m2 [23, 24, 28, 35–38].
One study offered surgery to obesity class II as defined for Asian populations (i.e. BMI >37 kg/m2). The rest of the studies offered surgery to different ranges of BMI above and below 35 kg/m2 [19, 25, 30, 39–41].
DJB was offered to patients with a BMI of <35 kg/m2, and DJB-SG was offered to patients with a larger BMI range from 21.8 to 45 kg/m2. DJBS was offered to patients with BMI >35 kg/m2, apart from one study where patients with BMI >26 kg/m2 were offered surgery [40]. II-SG was offered mainly to patients whose BMI was <35 kg/m2 (four papers) [26, 27, 29, 31]. One study offered surgery to patients with BMI >35 kg/m2 [28] and one study offered surgery to patients with BMIs above and below 35 kg/m2 [30].
Definition of remission
Two articles defined remission of diabetes as HbA1c <6 % and fasting glucose <100 mg/dl for at least 1-year duration without the use of pharmacological therapy [19, 28]. Three articles defined remission as HbA1c <6.5 % and absence of anti-diabetic medications (ADMs) [20, 29, 31], and four articles defined remission as HbA1c <7 % with patients being free of ADMs [18, 19, 27, 30, 39].
Other articles defined remission as normal fasting plasma glucose, HbA1c and no ADM without explicitly providing the numeric values of normal levels (one article) [23], HbA1c <7 % (two articles) [35, 36], HbA1c <7 % with or without ADM (one article) [21], HbA1c <6.5 % (one article) [26], no ADM (three articles) [32, 34, 38] and improved glycaemic control (six articles) [22, 24, 25, 33, 37, 40]. One article reported no clear endpoint for remission of diabetes [41].
Length of follow-up
Nine studies had follow-up lengths of less than or equal to 6 months [19, 22–25, 34, 36, 38, 41]. Of these, three studies had follow-up periods of 3 months [23, 24, 38] and one had a follow-up period of 5 months [41]. Some of the studies that performed DJB and DJBS had follow-up periods of 6 months or less. Studies where II-SG was performed had follow-up periods of a minimum of 9 months and a maximum follow-up period of 39.1 months.
There were a total of 13 studies with a follow-up of greater than 12 months. Of these, DJB was performed in five of these studies [18, 20, 21, 33, 39]. DJBS performed in three studies [35, 37, 40] and II-SG performed in five studies [26–29, 31].
Discussion
Foregut and hindgut procedures based on animal studies to date have shown limited and potentially promising success in the control of T2DM [9, 12, 42–44]. There is, however, no convincing evidence of its success in larger mammals or primates. Hence, the use of these theory-based procedures in humans at this juncture may be premature due to its lack of evidence in successfully achieving remission of T2DM.
In an effort to explain the weight loss-independent mechanisms of remission of T2DM, these theory-based procedures performed in humans seem to be a simplistic account of more complex physiological and chemical alterations that occur during the ingestion, storage, transit and digestion of food in the human body. It is well hypothesised that a combination of hormones for example incretin, glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide can alter in the post-prandial period [14, 44]. Other studies have suggested an alteration in the levels of ghrelin, peptide YY and leptin that play an important part in the maintenance of glucose homoeostasis and alterations in weight [45, 46]. Aside from the chemical alterations that occur in patients following bariatric surgery, these procedures seemingly avoid the acknowledgement of the physiological mechanisms involved in digestion of food for example rate of gastric emptying, constitution of meals, absorptive capacities of the different segments and the different transit times from one part of the ileum to another in different patients [47–51]. Appreciation of these physiological mechanisms is not reflected in studies as demonstrated by the variation in length of the excluded duodenojejunal limb [27, 28] and the use of diverting/non-diverting sleeve gastrectomy with II [26].
This systematic review highlights a wide variation in the key areas of the reported series. It also highlights several key messages.
The lack of standardisation of these procedures and the wide variation in definitions of remission of T2DM [17] make direct comparisons between the studies difficult. In most of these studies, the number of patients and length of follow-up played a huge negative impact on the final outcome and reliability of these studies. This precludes procedure-specific conclusions despite our systematic review. It is clear in this systematic review article that a combination of conventional and theory-based procedures (e.g. SG in DJB-SG and II-SG and endoscopic sleeve starting at the oesophagus in DJBS) produced seemingly promising results. Hence, this begs the question whether the effect of these procedures in achieving remission of T2DM is related to the SG (conventional bariatric procedure) or to the theory-based procedure components of the operation.
In an attempt to overcome some of the above issues and give readers and researchers a reasonable, albeit imperfect view of the outcomes of these procedures, we synthesised the data from the studies that reported an acceptable definition of remission of diabetes mellitus and produced an overall remission rate of diabetes for each procedure (Tables 2, 5).
Current conventional bariatric procedures have been shown in the longer term to have produced better results than these theory-based procedures [4]. A meta-analysis of metabolic and bariatric surgery for morbidly obese patients showed greater than 78.1 % of diabetic patients who had complete resolution with improvement in control or resolution of diabetes in 86.6 % of patients [4]. The same conventional surgery on patients with BMI <35 kg/m2 has shown adequate diabetic control (HbA1c <7 % and no diabetes medications) in 80–90 % of patients, along with a BMI loss of 5–7.5 % [52–54].
In randomised and non-randomised studies, SG alone achieved high rates of remission of diabetes [53, 55, 56]. A systematic review by Gill et al. assessing the improvement in control of T2DM in obese patients following SG showed resolution of T2DM in 66.2 % of patients, with improvement in control of T2DM in 26.9 % of patients [57]. These results are comparable to combined procedures identified in this review, where DJB-SG and II-SG achieved overall remission rates of 63 and 77.8 %, respectively (Table 6). Indeed the only procedure identified in the literature that is solely based on the foregut theory is the DJB which is shown to achieve remission rates of T2DM of 27 %, suggesting that the SG component in these theory-based combination procedures plays a more significant role in remission of T2DM.
Data on the complexity of the operation (using number of anastomoses as a surrogate marker of complexity), morbidity, mortality and diabetes resolution are presented in Table 6 and compared with SG and other conventional bariatric procedures. It clearly shows lack of benefit of these theory-based procedures alone, and we therefore question the need to combine additional procedures to conventional bariatric operations as each procedure is fraught with increased complexity, mortality and morbidity. Gagner et al. [58] suggested that simpler procedures for example SG should be performed initially (with 85 % resolution of T2DM) before considering the addition of other procedures such as II or DJB to further improve glycaemic control.
Mortality associated with conventional Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) surgery has been reported in studies to be 0.4–0.5 % [59, 60]. Meanwhile morbidity associated with RYGB surgery has been reported to have complication rates of approximately 8.4 % for early major complications (including pneumonia and gastro-jejunal leaks) [60]. Another study reported 3.3 % major complication rates after RYGB, of which small bowel obstruction rates were 1.1 % [59]. Anastomotic leak rates reported in the literature were 0.37–3 % [59, 61]. In contrast to this, the DJB and DJBS procedures highlighted in this systematic review report no mortality [19, 34] and II studies report early mortality rates of 0.99 % and later mortality rates of 1 % [26]. Meanwhile, major complications of anastomotic leak and bowel obstruction following DJB were reported to be 0.8–1.3 % [26, 28] and 0.8–3.3 %, respectively [26, 28, 31].
There are several limitations to this review article, some of which has been described above. One other factor that limits our conclusions following this systematic review is the length of follow-up. Whilst we had tried to include studies with longer follow-up periods, the poverty of data and available studies published in the English-speaking world on these theory-based procedures meant that the follow-up period assessed in this systematic review was shorter than the ideal follow-up period the authors of this study would have liked to achieve.
Conclusion
Foregut, hindgut or sleeve?
The only operation that is based on the foregut theory and applied in humans is DJB (without sleeve). The rest of the operations include additional ‘non-theory’ elements such as SG. The remission rate for DJB alone (pure foregut application) is low, only 16–40 %. SG achieves remission of diabetes in 50–88.8 % of patients [53, 55, 62–64]. This is comparable to DJB-SG (63 %) and II-SG (77.8 %). The value of adding complex elements to a good operation (SG) is unclear and appears unfounded. The lack of extra benefit from the foregut and hindgut elements of DJB-SG and II-SG makes the real value of foregut and hindgut theory questionable.
Authors of these papers frequently talk about the hidden element of diabetes remission and assumed it is based on the duodenum or the ileum. Whilst we agree that there is a hidden undiscovered element, it is likely to be in the stomach and further research should be focused on this organ.
References
Pories WJ, Swanson MS, MacDonald KG, Long SB, Morris PG, Brown BM et al (1995) Who would have thought it? An operation proves to be the most effective therapy for adult-onset diabetes mellitus. Ann Surg 222(3):339–350; discussion 50–52
Thaler JP, Cummings DE (2009) Minireview: hormonal and metabolic mechanisms of diabetes remission after gastrointestinal surgery. Endocrinology 150(6):2518–2525
Pok EH, Lee WJ (2014) Gastrointestinal metabolic surgery for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus. World J Gastroenterol 20(39):14315–14328
Buchwald H, Estok R, Fahrbach K, Banel D, Jensen MD, Pories WJ et al (2009) Weight and type 2 diabetes after bariatric surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Med 122(3):248–256 e5
Ikramuddin S, Korner J, Lee WJ, Connett JE, Inabnet WB, Billington CJ et al (2013) Roux-en-Y gastric bypass vs intensive medical management for the control of type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia: the Diabetes Surgery Study randomized clinical trial. JAMA 309(21):2240–2249
Mingrone G, Panunzi S, De Gaetano A, Guidone C, Iaconelli A, Leccesi L et al (2012) Bariatric surgery versus conventional medical therapy for type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 366(17):1577–1585
Dixon JB, O’Brien PE, Playfair J, Chapman L, Schachter LM, Skinner S et al (2008) Adjustable gastric banding and conventional therapy for type 2 diabetes: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 299(3):316–323
Schauer PR, Kashyap SR, Wolski K, Brethauer SA, Kirwan JP, Pothier CE et al (2012) Bariatric surgery versus intensive medical therapy in obese patients with diabetes. N Engl J Med 366(17):1567–1576
Patriti A, Aisa MC, Annetti C, Sidoni A, Galli F, Ferri I et al (2007) How the hindgut can cure type 2 diabetes. Ileal transposition improves glucose metabolism and beta-cell function in Goto-kakizaki rats through an enhanced Proglucagon gene expression and L-cell number. Surgery 142(1):74–85
Preitner F, Ibberson M, Franklin I, Binnert C, Pende M, Gjinovci A et al (2004) Gluco-incretins control insulin secretion at multiple levels as revealed in mice lacking GLP-1 and GIP receptors. J Clin Invest. 113(4):635–645
Hansen EN, Tamboli RA, Isbell JM, Saliba J, Dunn JP, Marks-Shulman PA et al (2011) Role of the foregut in the early improvement in glucose tolerance and insulin sensitivity following Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 300(5):G795–G802
Rubino F, Forgione A, Cummings DE, Vix M, Gnuli D, Mingrone G et al (2006) The mechanism of diabetes control after gastrointestinal bypass surgery reveals a role of the proximal small intestine in the pathophysiology of type 2 diabetes. Ann Surg 244(5):741–749
Bose M, Olivan B, Teixeira J, Pi-Sunyer FX, Laferrere B (2009) Do Incretins play a role in the remission of type 2 diabetes after gastric bypass surgery: what are the evidence? Obes Surg 19(2):217–229
Laferrere B (2011) Diabetes remission after bariatric surgery: is it just the incretins? Int J Obes (Lond) 35(Suppl 3):S22–S25
World Health Organization (2000) Obesity: preventing and managing the global epidemic. Report of a WHO consultation. World Health Organization technical report series, vol 894, pp i–vii, 1–253
Lakdawala M, Bhasker A (2008) Report: Asian consensus meeting on metabolic surgery. recommendations for the use of bariatric and gastrointestinal metabolic surgery for treatment of obesity and type II diabetes mellitus in the Asian population: August 9th and 10th, 2008, Trivandrum, India. Obes Surg 20(7):929–936
Buse JB, Caprio S, Cefalu WT, Ceriello A, Del Prato S, Inzucchi SE et al (2009) How do we define cure of diabetes? Diabetes Care 32(11):2133–2135
Cohen R, Caravatto PP, Correa JL, Noujaim P, Petry TZ, Salles JE et al (2012) Glycemic control after stomach-sparing duodenal-jejunal bypass surgery in diabetic patients with low body mass index. Surg Obes Relat Dis 8(4):375–380
Huang C-K, Goel R, Tai C-M, Yen Y-C, Gohil VD, Chen X-Y (2013) Novel metabolic surgery for type II diabetes mellitus: loop duodenojejunal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutaneous Tech 23(6):481–485
Klein S, Fabbrini E, Patterson BW, Polonsky KS, Schiavon CA, Correa JL et al (2012) Moderate effect of duodenal-jejunal bypass surgery on glucose homeostasis in patients with type 2 diabetes. Obesity (Silver Spring) 20(6):1266–1272
Geloneze B, Geloneze SR, Chaim E, Hirsch FF, Felici AC, Lambert G et al (2012) Metabolic surgery for non-obese type 2 diabetes: incretins, adipocytokines, and insulin secretion/resistance changes in a 1-year interventional clinical controlled study. Ann Surg 256(1):72–78
Lee HC, Kim MK, Kwon HS, Kim E, Song KH (2010) Early changes in incretin secretion after laparoscopic duodenal-jejunal bypass surgery in type 2 diabetic patients. Obes Surg 20(11):1530–1535
Rodriguez-Grunert L, Galvao Neto MP, Alamo M, Ramos AC, Baez PB, Tarnoff M (2008) First human experience with endoscopically delivered and retrieved duodenal-jejunal bypass sleeve. Surg Obes Relat Dis 4(1):55–59
Schouten R, Rijs CS, Bouvy ND, Hameeteman W, Koek GH, Janssen IM et al (2010) A multicenter, randomized efficacy study of the EndoBarrier Gastrointestinal Liner for presurgical weight loss prior to bariatric surgery. Ann Surg 251(2):236–243
Rodriguez L, Reyes E, Fagalde P, Oltra MS, Saba J, Aylwin CG et al (2009) Pilot clinical study of an endoscopic, removable duodenal-jejunal bypass liner for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther 11(11):725–732
DePaula AL, Stival AR, DePaula CC, Halpern A, Vencio S (2012) Surgical treatment of type 2 diabetes in patients with BMI below 35: mid-term outcomes of the laparoscopic ileal interposition associated with a sleeve gastrectomy in 202 consecutive cases. J Gastrointest Surg 16(5):967–976
DePaula AL, Macedo AL, Mota BR, Schraibman V (2009) Laparoscopic ileal interposition associated to a diverted sleeve gastrectomy is an effective operation for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus patients with BMI 21-29. Surg Endosc 23(6):1313–1320
DePaula AL, Stival AR, Halpern A, Vencio S (2011) Surgical treatment of morbid obesity: mid-term outcomes of the laparoscopic ileal interposition associated to a sleeve gastrectomy in 120 patients. Obes Surg 21(5):668–675
Kota SK, Ugale S, Gupta N, Naik V, Kumar KV, Modi KD (2012) Ileal interposition with sleeve gastrectomy for treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Indian J Endocrinol Metab 16(4):589–598
Kumar KV, Ugale S, Gupta N, Naik V, Kumar P, Bhaskar P et al (2009) Ileal interposition with sleeve gastrectomy for control of type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther 11(12):785–789
Tinoco A, El-Kadre L, Aquiar L, Tinoco R, Savassi-Rocha P (2011) Short-term and mid-term control of type 2 diabetes mellitus by laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy with ileal interposition. World J Surg 35(10):2238–2244
Cohen RV, Schiavon CA, Pinheiro JS, Correa JL, Rubino F (2007) Duodenal-jejunal bypass for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in patients with body mass index of 22–34 kg/m2: a report of 2 cases. Surg Obes Relat Dis 3(2):195–197
Ferzli GS, Dominique E, Ciaglia M, Bluth MH, Gonzalez A, Fingerhut A (2009) Clinical improvement after duodenojejunal bypass for nonobese type 2 diabetes despite minimal improvement in glycemic homeostasis. World J Surg 33(5):972–979
Ramos AC, Galvao Neto MP, de Souza YM, Galvao M, Murakami AH, Silva AC et al (2009) Laparoscopic duodenal-jejunal exclusion in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in patients with BMI <30 kg/m2 (LBMI). Obes Surg 19(3):307–312
de Moura EG, Martins BC, Lopes GS, Orso IR, de Oliveira SL, Galvao Neto MP et al (2012) Metabolic improvements in obese type 2 diabetes subjects implanted for 1 year with an endoscopically deployed duodenal-jejunal bypass liner. Diabetes Technol Ther 14(2):183–189
de Moura EG, Orso IR, da Martins BC, Lopes GS, de Oliveira SL, dos Galvao-Neto MP et al (2011) Improvement of insulin resistance and reduction of cardiovascular risk among obese patients with type 2 diabetes with the duodenojejunal bypass liner. Obes Surg 21(7):941–947
Escalona A, Pimentel F, Sharp A, Becerra P, Slako M, Turiel D et al (2012) Weight loss and metabolic improvement in morbidly obese subjects implanted for 1 year with an endoscopic duodenal-jejunal bypass liner. Ann Surg 255(6):1080–1085
Sandler BJ, Rumbaut R, Swain CP, Torres G, Morales L, Gonzales L et al (2011) Human experience with an endoluminal, endoscopic, gastrojejunal bypass sleeve. Surg Endosc 25(9):3028–3033
Raj PP, Kumaravel R, Chandramaliteeswaran C, Vaithiswaran V, Palanivelu C (2012) Laparoscopic duodenojejunal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy: preliminary results of a prospective series from India. Surg Endosc 26(3):688–692
Cohen RV, Neto MG, Correa JL, Sakai P, Martins B, Schiavon CA et al (2013) A pilot study of the duodenal-jejunal bypass liner in low body mass index type 2 diabetes. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 98(2):E279–E282
de Jonge C, Rensen SS, Koek GH, Joosten MF, Buurman WA, Bouvy ND et al (2013) Endoscopic duodenal-jejunal bypass liner rapidly improves plasma parameters of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 11(11):1517–1520
Rubino F, Marescaux J (2004) Effect of duodenal–jejunal exclusion in a non-obese animal model of type 2 diabetes: a new perspective for an old disease. Ann Surg 239(1):1
Wang TT, Gao HD, Zhang GY, Liu CZ, Feng JB, Frezza EE (2008) Ileal transposition controls diabetes as well as modified duodenal jejunal bypass with better lipid lowering in a nonobese rat model of type II diabetes by increasing GLP-1. Ann Surg 247(6):968–975
Pacheco D, de Luis DA, Romero A, Sagrado MG, Conde R, Izaola O et al (2007) The effects of duodenal-jejunal exclusion on hormonal regulation of glucose metabolism in Goto-Kakizaki rats. Am J Surg 194(2):221–224
Cummings DE, Weigle DS, Frayo RS, Breen PA, Ma MK, Dellinger EP et al (2002) Plasma ghrelin levels after diet-induced weight loss or gastric bypass surgery. N Engl J Med 346(21):1623–1630
Kotidis EV, Koliakos GG, Baltzopoulos VG, Ioannidis KN, Yovos JG, Papavramidis ST (2006) Serum ghrelin, leptin and adiponectin levels before and after weight loss: comparison of three methods of treatmen—a prospective study. Obes Surg 16(11):1425–1432
Van Citters GW, Lin HC (1999) The ileal brake: a fifteen-year progress report. Curr Gastroenterol Rep 1(5):404–409
Lin HC, Zhao X-T, Chu AW, Lin YP, Wang L (1997) Fiber-supplemented enteral formula slows intestinal transit by intensifying inhibitory feedback from the distal gut. Am J Clin Nutr 65(6):1840–1844
Brown NJ, Worlding J, Rumsey R, Read N (1988) The effect of guar gum on the distribution of a radiolabelled meal in the gastrointestinal tract of the rat. Br J Nutr 59(02):223–231
Zhang G, Hasek LY, Lee B-H, Hamaker BR (2015) Gut feedback mechanisms and food intake: a physiological approach to slow carbohydrate bioavailability. Food Funct 6(4):1072–1089
Raybould HE (1998) Does your gut taste? Sensory transduction in the gastrointestinal tract. Physiology 13(6):275–280
Baskota A, Li S, Dhakal N, Liu G, Tian H (2015) Bariatric surgery for type 2 diabetes mellitus in patients with BMI <30 kg/m2: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 10(7):e0132335
Lee WJ, Almulaifi AM, Tsou JJ, Ser KH, Lee YC, Chen SC (2015) Duodenal-jejunal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy versus the sleeve gastrectomy procedure alone: the role of duodenal exclusion. Surg Obes Relat Dis 11(4):765–770
Rao WS, Shan CX, Zhang W, Jiang DZ, Qiu M (2015) A meta-analysis of short-term outcomes of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and BMI </= 35 kg/m2 undergoing Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. World J Surg 39(1):223–230
Abbatini F, Capoccia D, Casella G, Coccia F, Leonetti F, Basso N (2012) Type 2 diabetes in obese patients with body mass index of 30–35 kg/m2: sleeve gastrectomy versus medical treatment. Surg Obes Relat Dis 8(1):20–24
Lee WJ, Wang W, Lee YC, Huang MT, Ser KH, Chen JC (2008) Effect of laparoscopic mini-gastric bypass for type 2 diabetes mellitus: comparison of BMI >35 and <35 kg/m2. J Gastrointest Surg 12(5):945–952
Gill RS, Birch DW, Shi X, Sharma AM, Karmali S (2010) Sleeve gastrectomy and type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review. Surg Obes Relat Dis 6(6):707–713
Gagner M (2011) Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy with ileal interposition (SGIT): a modified duodenal switch for resolution of type 2 diabetes mellitus in lesser obese patients (BMI <35). World J Surg 35(1):109–110
Schauer PR, Ikramuddin S, Gourash W, Ramanathan R, Luketich J (2000) Outcomes after laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass for morbid obesity. Ann Surg 232(4):515–529
Schauer PR, Burguera B, Ikramuddin S, Cottam D, Gourash W, Hamad G et al (2003) Effect of laparoscopic Roux-en Y gastric bypass on type 2 diabetes mellitus. Ann Surg 238(4):467–484; discussion 84–85
Wittgrove AC, Clark GW (2000) Laparoscopic gastric bypass, Roux-en-Y-500 patients: technique and results, with 3-60 month follow-up. Obes Surg 10(3):233–239
Gill RS, Birch DW, Shi X, Sharma AM, Karmali S (2010) Sleeve gastrectomy and type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review. Surg Obes Relat Dis 6(6):707–713
Abbatini F, Rizzello M, Casella G, Alessandri G, Capoccia D, Leonetti F et al (2010) Long-term effects of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, gastric bypass, and adjustable gastric banding on type 2 diabetes. Surg Endosc 24(5):1005–1010
Nocca D, Guillaume F, Noel P, Picot MC, Aggarwal R, El Kamel M et al (2011) Impact of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and laparoscopic gastric bypass on HbA1c blood level and pharmacological treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in severe or morbidly obese patients. Results of a multicenter prospective study at 1 year. Obes Surg 21(6):738–743
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Disclosures
Yan Mei Goh, Zaher Toumi and Ravindra S. Date have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.
Ethical approval
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Informed consent
Informed consent was not required as no participants were used in this study.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Goh, Y.M., Toumi, Z. & Date, R.S. Surgical cure for type 2 diabetes by foregut or hindgut operations: a myth or reality? A systematic review. Surg Endosc 31, 25–37 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-4952-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-4952-4