Metabolic Surgery



Over the past five years, the term “metabolic surgery” has become increasingly popular. However, despite the popularity of the nomenclature, a clear definition of metabolic surgery has not been established. In 2002, we suggested that gastrointestinal surgery could be used with the primary intent to treat type 2 diabetes - “diabetes surgery”. The idea derived not only from the remarkable clinical effects of bariatric surgery on diabetes, but also from the recognition that the gastrointestinal tract is a major player in the regulation of glucose homeostasis. Ensuing investigations showing that the mechanisms of action of bariatric procedures are metabolic in nature, not just mechanic, provided scientific support for the surgical treatment of type 2 diabetes. The idea has progressively gained acceptance after a landmark “Diabetes Surgery Summit” in 2007, two world congresses dedicated to the subject and several position statements of relevant organizations, notably the International Diabetes Federation in 2011. “Metabolic” and “diabetes surgery”, however, are often incorrectly referred to as a surgical approach to treat diabetes in low BMI patients or as a set of novel and yet experimental operations. These are inaccurate definitions as they represent, at best, only two potential applications of metabolic surgery, not its defining characteristics. In fact, surgical disciplines are never defined by specific procedures, let alone by BMI ranges; rather, the definition and names of surgical subspecialties depend on the organ system whose anatomy is modified by the surgeon (as in neurosurgery, cardiac surgery, GI surgery) and/or by the diseases that one intends to treat (as in endocrine surgery). To help define the discipline of metabolic/diabetes surgery we investigated whether the name and, by inference, the primary intent of surgery can influence critical aspects of patient care, independent on the use of novel procedures or operating on non-obese patients. A “Metabolic Surgery Program” distinct from the “Bariatric Surgery Service” was recently established at a tertiary US academic medical center. The two programs differ for their stated goals but offer the same procedures and use identical eligibility criteria in patients with morbid obesity. This unusual situation provided a unique opportunity to compare metabolic and bariatric surgery. Compared to the bariatric surgery cohort, the metabolic surgery group in our study was older, had a more balanced male/female ratio, showed higher incidence of type 2 diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, higher cardiovascular risk and established cardiovascular disease at baseline. These findings suggests that the name and, by inference, the intent of metabolic/diabetes surgery may influence patients' motives and perceptions of risks and benefits increasing the number of patients who seek surgery for medical reasons, rather than for physical problems or concerns related to body image. The substantial changes in demographic and clinical characteristics of surgical candidates have profound repercussions in terms of patients’ expectations, definition of success of treatment, pre-operative evaluation and diagnostics, choice of procedure, postoperative care and follow-up, multidisciplinary expertise and care team composition. These are defining aspects of clinical care that characterise metabolic/diabetes surgery as a new surgical subspecialty, distinct from traditional bariatric surgery. Based on the result of this study we propose that metabolic surgery be defined as “a set of gastrointestinal operations used with the intent to treat diabetes ("diabetes surgery") and metabolic dysfunctions (which include obesity)”. Given the important and distinct implications for patient care, using standard, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass to treat type 2 diabetes in patients with BMI above 35 should be considered “metabolic/diabetes surgery” not “bariatric surgery”. This means that, contrary to common misperceptions, the coming of age of metabolic surgery requires immediate attention to medical and public education more than major changes in health care policies. In fact, in patients with BMI above 35 surgical treatment of diabetes is now recommended by virtually all professional organizations and is already covered by most private and public health care providers. However, less than 2% of such patients in the USA, and far fewer in other countries, have access to surgery. Misconceptions of risks and benefits of surgical treatment, possibly encouraged by the name and implicit aims of bariatric surgery, may act as a barrier for surgical access. Given the societal bias against obesity and the incorrect but common idea that one could lose weight by eating less and exercising more, weight reduction by surgery may look too risky or too costly for most physicians and payers. Using a name that better reflects aims and mechanisms of surgery may be the first step in the direction of improving access to surgery for those who need it.

Reference