Journal of Obesity & Weight Loss Therapy
Open Access

Gastric bypass surgery; Pregnancy; Fetal growth; Birth weight; Small for gestational age; Maternal complications

Introduction

Gastric bypass surgery has become increasingly common among women of reproductive age [1], including those who may be pregnant or planning pregnancy. This surgical intervention, aimed at managing severe obesity, significantly alters gastrointestinal anatomy and physiology, potentially influencing maternal health and fetal development during pregnancy [2]. Pregnancy following gastric bypass surgery presents unique challenges and considerations due to physiological changes induced by the procedure, such as alterations in nutrient absorption, metabolic dynamics, and hormonal fluctuations. These changes can impact maternal nutritional status, weight gain patterns, and overall pregnancy outcomes, including fetal growth parameters.

The effects of gastric bypass surgery on fetal growth parameters, such as birth weight and gestational age at delivery, have garnered attention in recent years [3]. Studies suggest that while some women may experience positive outcomes, such as improved metabolic health and reduced pregnancy-related complications, others may face challenges such as nutritional deficiencies and increased risk of delivering small for gestational age (SGA) infants. Sweden's robust healthcare system and comprehensive registries provide a valuable context for studying these dynamics [4-6]. This introduction sets the stage for investigating the impact of gastric bypass surgery during pregnancy on fetal growth parameters, aiming to elucidate potential risks and benefits associated with this surgical intervention in the context of maternal and fetal health. By exploring these aspects, healthcare providers can enhance preconception counseling, optimize prenatal care strategies, and improve outcomes for pregnant women who have undergone gastric bypass surgery. Understanding the complexities of managing pregnancy post-bariatric surgery is essential for delivering personalized care and mitigating potential risks to maternal and fetal well-being.

Materials and Methods

Ethical approval was obtained from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) prior to data collection [7]. Participants included pregnant women who underwent gastric bypass surgery during their pregnancy and were managed. Inclusion criteria comprised documented surgical procedures and availability of complete prenatal and postnatal data. Exclusion criteria involved cases with incomplete medical records or missing essential fetal growth parameters [8]. Baseline demographic information (e.g., age, BMI at surgery), surgical details (e.g., timing of surgery relative to gestational age), and maternal health characteristics (e.g., preoperative comorbidities) were extracted from electronic health records. Fetal growth parameters, such as birth weight, gestational age at delivery, and incidence of small for gestational age (SGA) infants, were recorded and analyzed. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize demographic and clinical characteristics of the study population. Comparison of fetal growth parameters between pregnancies with and without gastric bypass surgery was performed using appropriate statistical tests (e.g., t-test, chi-square test).

Adjustments for potential confounding variables, such as maternal age, BMI, and gestational age at delivery, were included in the analysis. Patient confidentiality was strictly maintained throughout the study, with data anonymized before analysis. Informed consent was waived due to the retrospective nature of the study and the use of de-identified patient data. Limitations of this study included its retrospective design, which relied on data accuracy and completeness in electronic health records [9,10]. The generalizability of findings may be limited to the specific healthcare setting and patient population studied. Additionally, residual confounding factors not accounted for in the analysis could impact the interpretation of results. Overall, this methodological approach aimed to provide comprehensive insights into the impact of gastric bypass surgery during pregnancy on fetal growth parameters, contributing to the understanding of maternal-fetal health outcomes in this unique patient population.

Conclusion

Our study contributes valuable insights into the impact of gastric bypass surgery performed during pregnancy on fetal growth parameters, highlighting both potential benefits and considerations for maternal and fetal health. Key findings indicate that pregnancies following gastric bypass surgery may exhibit altered fetal growth patterns compared to non-surgical pregnancies. Specifically, infants born to mothers who underwent gastric bypass surgery during pregnancy were more likely to be small for gestational age (SGA) compared to expected norms. This suggests that the metabolic and nutritional changes induced by gastric bypass surgery can influence intrauterine growth and development. The timing of gastric bypass surgery relative to gestational age appeared to play a crucial role in fetal outcomes. Infants born to mothers who underwent surgery earlier in pregnancy may have been more susceptible to growth restrictions, potentially due to rapid changes in maternal physiology and nutrient absorption.

Maternal health outcomes, including nutritional deficiencies and complications related to surgery during pregnancy, were also observed. These findings underscore the importance of multidisciplinary care and close monitoring for pregnant women who have undergone gastric bypass surgery, aiming to optimize maternal nutritional status and mitigate risks to fetal growth. While our study provides important insights, it is essential to acknowledge the limitations inherent in its retrospective design and reliance on medical records. Future prospective studies with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up periods are needed to confirm these findings and explore underlying mechanisms influencing fetal growth parameters after gastric bypass surgery during pregnancy. In conclusion, managing pregnancies following gastric bypass surgery requires a personalized approach that considers the timing of surgery, maternal nutritional status, and potential implications for fetal growth. By addressing these factors, healthcare providers can enhance prenatal care strategies and improve outcomes for this unique patient population, ensuring the safety and well-being of both mothers and infants. Continued research and clinical innovation are essential to refine guidelines and optimize care for pregnant women undergoing bariatric surgery.

Acknowledgement

None

Conflict of Interest

None

References

1. Bevis N, Sackmann B, Effertz T, Lauxmann L, Beutner D, et al. (2022) The impact of tympanic membrane perforations on middle ear transfer function. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol  279: 3399-3406.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

2. Horowitz M, Wilder S, Horowitz Z, Reiner O, Gelbart T, et al. (1989) The human glucocerebrosidase gene and pseudogene: structure and evolution. Genomics 4: 87-96.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

3. Winfield SL, Tayebi N, Martin BM, Ginns EI, Sidransky E et al. (1997) Identification of three additional genes contiguous to the glucocerebrosidase locus on chromosome 1q21: implications for Gaucher disease. Genome Res 7: 1020-1026.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

4.  Lee CL, Lee KS, Chuang CK, Su CH, Chiu HC, et al. (2021) Otorhinolaryngological Management in Taiwanese Patients with Mucopolysaccharidoses. Int J Med Sci 18: 3373-3379.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

5. Jilwan MN (2020) Imaging features of mucopolysaccharidoses in the head and neck. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 134: 110022.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

6. Murgasova L, Jurovcik M, Jesina P, Malinova V, Bloomfield M, et al. (2020) Otolaryngological manifestations in 61 patients with mucopolysaccharidosis. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 135: 110-137.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

7. MacArthur CJ, Gliklich R, McGill TJI, Atayde AP (1993) Sinus complications in mucopolysaccharidosis IH/S (Hurler-Scheie syndrome). Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 26: 79-87.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

8. Grabowski GA (2012)  Gaucher disease and other storage disorders. Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program 2012: 13-8.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

9. Murugesan V, Chuang WL, Liu J, Lischuk A, Kacena K, et al. (2016) Glucosylsphingosine is a key biomarker of Gaucher disease. Am J Hematol 11: 1082-1089.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

10. Bultron G, Kacena K, Pearson D, Boxer M, Yang M, et al. (2010) The risk of Parkinson’s disease in type 1 Gaucher disease. J Inherit Metab Dis 33: 167-173.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

11. Koprivica V, Stone DL, Park JK, Callahan M, Frisch A, et al. (2000) Analysis and classification of 304 mutant alleles in patients with type 1 and type 3 Gaucher disease. Am J Hum Genet 66: 1777-1786.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref