Are Bariatric obesity surgery & related procedures being over-hyped?

In a recent thread on the Govt. paying for obesity surgery two respected SDMB Docs chimed in with the caution quoted below. It kind of surprised me in that I thought obesity surgery had an excellent track record re effectiveness, and was increasingly a preferred solution for morbidly obese people.

See Genesis Center For Bariatric Surgery

I would tend to trust the SDMB docs observations given that they are professionally informed via their colleagues about how this surgery is playing out in real life for patients?

Is it being over-hyped? Are that any studies that reflect the docs concerns?

I don’t really get the question. Are you asking if there is alot more debate over obesity surgery than there appears to be in the media which portrays it in a far more positive light than it really is or the medical community feels it is?

A recent study found the death rate is alot higher than it is made out to be.

To gather more accurate safety information, Flum and his colleagues analyzed data collected by Medicare on 16,155 patients who underwent the surgery from 1997 to 2002. The average age of the patients was 48.

Overall, 2 percent of patients died in the first month after surgery, nearly 3 percent died within the first three months and nearly 5 percent died within the first year, the researchers found. Previous reports have generally put the risk well below 1 percent. The risk was higher among men, and much higher among those 65 and older, putting those patients at nearly double the risk they would face from heart bypass and hip surgery, Flum said.
Then again other forms of bariatric surgery like laproscopic band surgery have a lower rate of complications than the kind of stomach stapling surgery you are probably thinking about. There is also research on using electrical impulses either to the stomach or vagus nerve to suppress appetite, which may be as effective as bariatric surgery for weight loss and is far less dangerous. I’m guessing in 20 years bariatric surgery won’t occur anymore and (in my view) will go down in history with lobotomies as a dangerous, complicated surgery that was done out of desperation and lack of medical knowledge of anything better. But that is my view.

I can only offer anecodotal information. In June my stomach perferated and they effectively did a bi-pass. Actually, they did a true bi-pass, in as much as they bi-passed the stomach completely. (Usually in bariatric surgery they leave a little pouch I am told) I, in effect, have no stomach, the esophagas goes straight to the small intestine.

Although I lost a lot of weight over the course of my illness, I am now fully able to gain weight and have gained back 20 lbs since recovery. (I also have an open wound on my stomach. I was told to eat high calory, high protien meals to aid in healing. As an example, it was recommended that I eat peanut butter right out of the jar)

The weight is is not as difficult to lose now as it was, but if I did not reform my habits - give up sugars and other bad food - I could easily pack on all the weight that I lost.

In other words, if you don’t treat the root of the problem - the bad eating habits - nothing will really change.

Trying to find my trusty link to the sustained weight loss study center. The basics: surgery is no more successful than anything else at keeping the weight off than anything else.

Incredibly effective for weight loss, but no more effective than diets when it comes to sustained weight loss.

You have no stomach! How is your food digested?

Mortality rates are a little higher than some centres say.
http://general-medicine.jwatch.org/cgi/content/full/2005/1028/1

Few studies on long-term effects, but this one shows some benefit
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3225/is_7_71/ai_n13784781

The surgery is becoming more popular in Canada, which I’d guess is far more strict about who they operate on. Good surgeons absolutely demand proof of other failed modalities and would probably operate only on BMIs>40 (BMI>35 with apnea or other serious co-morbidities).

I would prefer more independent data than from a centre that actually does the surgery. And the long-term effects are not well known, the second link above is one of the few done. If you get the operation and eat the same, the operation is not that effective. Given the cost, surgery (as is often the case) should be a later option offered to the patient.

Can someone with some knowledge (perhaps one of the distinguished doctors) tell us what % of obese people are that way due to some physical medical disorder, as opposed to simple overeating or a psychological disorder of some sort?

I have a friends of a friend that have explored this option to help her with her obesity, who claims she has “tried everything” and that obesity is a medical issue, and is not due to overeating. I have heard this before. Is this for real, or just an excuse which is really a pyschological issue?

We’ve had lots of threads on this. The huge majority of obesity (95% +) is due to overeating and consuming more calories than you burn. This is compounded for certain people like myself who have relatively slow metabolisms, like to eat, and have to make an effort to get into exercise mode.

To a large extent the problem is not so much the mechanism of getting fat, which is a fairly straightforward thermal input - output equation, but getting a handle on it, and adjusting your lifestyle and controlling/managing your appetite. For some people the emotional and physical impulse(s) to overeat are so strong they are almost beyond control, and for those people surgery might be the only option.

Another side effect, in addition to the possibility of death or re-gaining all the weight, is malnutrition. Because the body no longer absorbs nutrients efficiently it becomes possible to become severely malnourished and deficient in vital nutrients, especially if dietary practices remain bad.

At least one patient in New York died of malnutrition following bariatric surgery.

It can also lead to vitamin definciencies, and in some cases early onset of osteoporosis.

Basically, replumbing the digestive tract is pretty serious business.

I guess my issue, then, is that surgey is a temporary solution, which does nothing at all to solve the real solution.

I don’t have a real problem with tax money being used to help cure medical issues, as long as a cure was possible.

I see above great data on mortality rates associated with this surgeries, but notice that some research shows long term success rates of only about 50-60% (http://www.obesity.org/education/advisor.shtml

Is this a good enough rate for taxpayer help, or shoule other pyschological help be included as well?

WRT the specific question of are there any possibilities other than over eating in terms of being fat, there are some relatively rare glandular diseases that slow your metabolism to a crawl and/or interfere with your body’s ability to efficiently process food, but these people usually have a host of other serious medical complications related to these diseases, and being fat is often the least of their problems. The vast majority of obesity is (not so simply) due to over eating.-

In the small intestine. The stomach isn’t terribly important for digestion.

Basic animal biology dictates the critter strives to obtain and consume the maximum possible calories while using the least amount of effort possible. In the wild, where food is often scare and survival demands great exertions from time to time this trait is a survival characteristic.

Problem is, human beings don’t live in the wild anymore. We easily obtain dense, high-calorie foods and barely need to move more than your average potted plant.

Radical surgery changes that only temporarially - the body will, over trime, attempt to increase its food capacity and will be no more inclined to exercise than before.

Bariatric surgery treats symptoms, not the underlying mechanisms that drive people to eat too much and move too little.

Now, in some extreme cases such drastic treatment may be justified… but I also think it’s becoming the next “easy fix”, like phen-fen did.

As you might guess, for me digestion takes place in the small intestine.

If you eat more than your body needs then you will put on weight. exercise raises your body’s metabolism and allows you to eat more. However, if you’re still eating more than you are burning, you’ll put on weight. You need to work out what that balance is for you.

I watched a Discovery channel documentary about a boy who was having bariatric surgery because “nothing worked”. Although keeping a body that size ticking over requires massive amounts of energy, this boy actually put on weight in the weeks leading up to his surgery.

Then they showed footage of him eating at school and it all made sense. His plate was piled high with food, more food than I would in a day, just for lunch. What is the point of cutting out candy bars if you’re going to have 4 portions of mashed potato with butter, gravy and cream and three desserts for your lunch?

He may have “tried everything”, but he hadn’t got the core message, that you have to eat less. If this guy ate normal-sized portions of whatever he wanted he would lose weight.

For him it was obviously about feeling empty and deprived, about filling a void with massive quantities of food. I don’t think surgery is going to alter that, even if he did manage to lose a lot of weight very quickly in the immediate aftermath.

[QUOTE=Fat Chance]
I guess my issue, then, is that surgey is a temporary solution, which does nothing at all to solve the real solution.

I don’t have a real problem with tax money being used to help cure medical issues, as long as a cure was possible.

QUOTE]

This isn’t the standard we use to determine whether tax money will cover other medical procedures for people on Medicare due to disability. For example, if you walk off your roof while doing a home repair and become severely disabled, your care may include pain medication, maybe surgery to relieve pain even if it wouldn’t restore function, medical devices which restore function perhaps temporarily but do not cure, etc. And if the root cause is that psychologically you are easily distracted and don’t belong up on a roof, that probably wouldn’t enter into the picture at all.

IF this surgery is overall cost-effective for the government for the patient in question, why oppose it? I wouldn’t oppose funding diet and excercise plans or psychological counseling for these patients if that is shown cost effective. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen diet/exercise/counseling approach with a realistic 50-60% long-term success rate, especially for the most seriously obese, but if there’s one out there, great.

Mostly though you put on weight due to your own internal biochemistry giving you cues on how much you need to eat due to a highly complicated system of genes, proteins, fat cells and hormones that we barely understand. In fact trying to override your own internal biochemistry has failed to work so badly that things like intuitive eating are becoming popular which show you can’t beat biochemistry and that trying to do so is counterproductive, you can only work with it. Your body already tells you how much it needs, if you are feeling hungry or full you aren’t following intuitive eating. Plus increasing metabolism just increases appetite. I have a high metabolism due to being muscular, tall, male and active but if I eat less than 2500 calories a day I suffer from headaches and weakness. On a normal day I eat about 4000-4500 a day w/o thinking about it. I know people who suffer light headedness on 4000 calories a day who need 6000-7000.

As far as bariatric surgery having a 50-60% success rate, that is alot better than modern methods of behavioral modification and caloric restriction. Those only have a 0-10% success rate. But we are pretty desperate right now for a working weight loss solution. Behavioral modification doesn’t seem to work extremely well, non-intuitive eating (eating according to charts instead of internal cues) is counter-productive and drugs only result in about a 10% weight loss and there isn’t really much long term study on using drugs like wellbutrin or topamax for weight loss.

Dietary content can play a role

http://www.dfwnetmall.com/veg/yourfoodandyourhealth.htm

Obesity/Body Weight
The obesity rate among the general U.S. population is 18%.
The obesity rate among vegetarians is 6%

25% of U.S. children are overweight or obese.
8% of U.S. vegetarian children are overweight or obese.
But pragmatically getting people to undergo massive lifestyle changes is unlikely. You can eliminate social security if people just invested more wisely. You could eliminate the national debt if you raise the tax rate to 40%, you can eliminate much of the police forces if people just learn self defense and how to spot/report crimes and you could cut down on greenhouse gases if everyone drove hybrid sedans instead of SUVs. But its not going to happen.

Another way to look at the issue to get a new perspective isn’t comparing ‘fat vs. average’ people but ‘average vs. tiny’ people. Many of the people who are of average bodyfat (15-30%) feel that those who are fat (30-60%) are overeating or doing it due to psychological issues. But what about comparing the average to those who are naturally thin? Those who are naturally thin can be around 6% bodyfat. Is being 6% bodyfat normal and all of the 14% bodyfat people are just overeating due to psychological problems and abandonment issues?

I think people underestimate the role of habit, making poor decisions regarding food, diet, environment and gluttony regarding weight gain. (I won’t mention exercise here). Obviously, internal hormones and cues are very important regarding appetite, satiety and the satisfaction from eating. These internal cues cause some people to eat often and not feel full. However, to blame only these cues is insufficent.

People who eat large amounts can become accustomed to smaller portion sizes – the “small” french fries offered at McDs were once the only available size; the ridiculously large popcorns with golden topping offered at movie theatres are to recent to be written in the genetic coda. The obesity epidemic is happening because people will eat what is in front of them, since food supplies can be scarce. I often crave a bag of popcorn. I buy the light butter 37g mini-bags. I eat it and feel full. If I had a 99g or larger bag in front of me, I would eat all of that. Portion control makes a difference.

If I eat lots of processed foods or foods high in fat and carbs, I will gain weight. Many supposedly healthy foods, from granola bars, breakfast cereals, processed mashed potatoes, buttery popcorn, pretzels and juice are often poor choices if consumed often and in high volume. In addition, sugared soda (and more Americans get calories from soda than any other food source given the volumes consumed) and “hard to resist tasty stuff” like cookies, high fat dairy, candy, chocolate, yada yada are consumed in massive quantities. Our ancestors ate very few donuts.

People who are overweight often became so gradually. The trick is not to not eat if you are hungry. The trick is to eat smaller meals, more often, from a large list of well chosen foods such as skinless chicken, vegetables, low fat dairy, lean ham and beef, fewer processed foods, fewer baked goods, sugar-free soda, no chips, no french fries, no hamburgers. People who are overweight, much more often than not, really do make bad food decisions. This is often not their fault – there is much misinformation out there (and yes, there are bad choices at Subway and healthy ones at McDs), bad labelling (“low fat”=high carb?, “low carb”=high fat?, much temptation. ridiculous portions… but also never more foods that are low calorie and taste pretty damn good. Eat these ones. And if you don’t, the benefits of the surgery lessen with time. But there are indeed benefits to surgery, starting with the impact of diabetes, coronary heart disease, stroke risk and joint problems.

I’m a new poster, but I read these boards all the time. I’m not a doctor - I had a bypass. It will be 4 years on Dec 6th and I lost almost 300 lbs. This is a subject near and dear to me.

I can definitely tell you its overhyped. I know lots of people, through support groups both online and in person, who have done this. Most (probably 75%?)don’t get and keep the results they want. I have, but it was only partly because of the surgery. I am still on a diet. The surgery makes it easier to keep with the diet because I get sick if I eat too much or if I eat something I shouldn’t. It hasn’t been nearly as easy as the media sometimes makes it out to be. In fact, I get ticked off when someone tells me I “took the easy way out.”

To make obesity surgery available to just anybody will be a big disservice to taxpayers. This surgery is being performed on people who shouldn’t be put under in the first place.

I weighed almost 500 lbs. I stopped breathing in the recovery room becuase I had undiagnosed sleep apnea. I’ve had complications (gall bladder issues, pancreatitus, I throw up all the time) that have cost my insurance company many, many thousands of dollars. When I delivered my daughter in May of '04 I almost died from pancreatitus. Very rarely do I hear of a post-op patient who doesn’t have some kind of new health issue.

And if you do loose a lot of weight, you end up with all this extra skin. imagine me at almost 500 lbs, then imagine me loosing 300 lbs, but with empty skin. Its not a pretty picture. Now I want a tummy tuck. I could easily talk my insurance company into it being “medically necessary” because when you have a lot of extra skin, you tend to get infections easily where it hangs. I won’t be having a tummy tuck becuase no doctor will do one for me due to the pancreatitus attacks.

But just imagine what that could do to a state providing surgery to medical assistance users, between the actual surgery and all the follow up and future conditions being treated?

Finally, let me say this…would I do it again? absolutely…even after all this, it was still worth it. But then again, I didn’t pay for it, my insurance company did. :smiley: