Abstract
Background
The negative impact of obesity on male fertility and sexual health is well-established. Although metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) offers a powerful solution for severe obesity, its impact on the male androgens, semen quality, and sexual function are not yet fully understood.
Methods
A comprehensive systematic search of the literature was conducted in PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science for relevant studies published up to July 2024. Data about reproductive hormones, semen parameters, and sexual function in men with obesity undergoing bariatric surgery was extracted. For data synthesis, weighted mean differences (WMDs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random- or fixed-effects models, as appropriate.
Results
Fifty-nine studies with 60 arms were included in our meta-analysis. Metabolic and bariatric surgery indicated elevated levels of total testosterone (TT) (WMD: 5.46 nmol/L, p < 0.001; WMD: 6.58 nmol/L, p < 0.001; and WMD: 8.02 nmol/L, p < 0.001), sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG) (WMD: 14.56 nmol/L, p < 0.001; WMD: 18.08 nmol/L, p < 0.001; and WMD: 23.64 nmol/L, p < 0.001), international index of erectile function (IIEF) (WMD: 9.36, p < 0.001), and diminished levels of PRL (WMD: −76.48 mIU/L, p = 0.003) at all intervals. Moreover, increased levels of free testosterone (FT) at 6–9 month (WMD: 66.61 nmol/L, p < 0.001), and >12 months (WMD: 78.94 nmol/L; p < 0.001) were observed pos-operative state among obese men. Also, decreased levels of estradiol (E2) at 6–9 month (WMD: −14.52 nmol/L, p = 0.005), and ≥12 months (WMD: −11.63 nmol/L; p < 0.001) was seen after bariatric surgery.
Conclusion
Overally, this meta-analysis illustrated that bariatric surgery improves the hormonal profile and sexual function in obese men profoundly. These findings introduce bariatric surgery as an effective therapeutic strategy for weight loss management and male reproductive health improvement.
Keywords: bariatric surgery, male reproductive function, obesity, semen quality, sex hormones, sexual function
1. Introduction
Obesity is a rapidly growing global epidemic with severe systemic consequences (1). Epidemiological studies estimate that by 2035, over 1.5 billion adults will have obesity, presenting a healthcare challenge (2). Annually, obesity is linked to over 4.72 million deaths worldwide and is a major risk factor for comorbidities including metabolic disease (3). Beyond this, its detrimental impact extends to reproductive health too (4). The pathophysiological hallmarks of obesity such as chronic inflammation and endocrine dysregulation impair reproductive function, contributing to male subfertility and female disorders like PCOS (4–6). Previous studies illustrated profound influence of adiposity on reproductive endocrine health.
Metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS), primarily through procedures like Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (GB) and sleeve gastrectomy (SG), has become a cornerstone treatment for severe obesity (7). These interventions induce profound weight loss and ameliorate metabolic disorders via mechanisms such as gastric restriction, malabsorption, and altered gut hormone secretion (8, 9). Despite these well-documented systemic benefits, the specific impact of MBS on male reproductive function is an area of ongoing debate (10). While a body of evidence suggests potential benefits including increased serum testosterone, improved semen parameters, and enhanced sexual function, other studies report concerning outcomes, such as postoperative hormonal imbalance, worsening semen quality, and declines in sexual function scores (11, 12).
Given the expanding use of MBS and persistent uncertainties regarding its effects on male reproduction, an updated evidence synthesis is urgently needed. Prior meta-analyses, while indicating potential benefits, are limited by methodological shortcomings and are challenged by newer studies showing variable outcomes dependent on surgical technique and follow-up time. To address this, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of recent evidence to comprehensively evaluate the impact of BS on male reproductive hormones, sexual function, and semen parameters. This work provides a refined evidence base to guide the clinical management of obese men with reproductive dysfunction and to inform relevant public health strategies.
2. Materials and methods
Our meta-analysis was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) (13). The study protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO: CRD420261309015).
2.1. Search strategy
A comprehensive systematic search was conducted through PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases from inception to July 2024. The systematic search using Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) is as below: “bariatric surgical procedure”, “weight reduction surgery”, “obesity operation,” “gonadal hormones,” “sex hormones”, “gonadal steroid hormones”, “semen quality analyses”, “international index of erectile function (IIEF)”, as well as “seminal plasma analysis”. In addition, hand-searching was done to avoid missing any relevant studies. The search strategy is available in Supplementary Table 1.
2.2. Eligibility criteria and extraction process
The screening process was completed by two investigators independently and any disagreement was discussed. The inclusion criteria were as follow: Participants: participants were obese male patients undergoing MBS; Outcomes: TT, E2, FT, luteinizing hormone (LH), follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), SHBG, prolactin (PRL), sperm concentration (SC), total sperm count (TSC), semen volume (SV), percentages of morphologically normal, total motile sperm, and IIEF-5; Study design: observational cohort studies. While, studies with following criteria were excluded: animal or cellular studies, reviews, grey literature, including: ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and conference abstracts, study protocols, case reports letters, and incomplete data or serious methodological errors.
Based on eligibility criteria following data were extracted: first author, publication year, location, baseline characteristics of participants, type of MBS, follow-up duration, and reported outcomes.
2.3. Quality assessment
The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), which comprises eight items across three domains: selection, comparability, and exposure (14). The NOS yields a score ranging from 0 to 9, with a score of 6 or higher generally indicating high-quality studies, and a score of 5 or lower reflecting lower methodological quality. Following the GRADE approach, we evaluated the certainty of the evidence for each outcome based on five standard domains: risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision, and publication bias.
2.4. Statistical analysis
Statistical analysis was conducted using STATA software, version 18. The relationship between MBS and male reproductive function was evaluated by calculating WMDs alongside their 95% CIs. To quantify heterogeneity across studies, we employed the Cochrane Q test and the I2 statistic. Significant heterogeneity was predefined as an I2 statistic exceeding 50%. Based on this assessment, a random-effects model was applied when substantial heterogeneity was present; otherwise, a fixed-effects model was used. The robustness of the pooled results was examined through sensitivity analysis. We investigated potential sources of heterogeneity via subgroup analyses, stratified by surgical procedure and duration of follow-up. To explore potential sources of heterogeneity, we performed meta-regression analyses examining the impact of surgical type, follow-up duration, baseline BMI, and study quality (NOS score) as covariates. For outcomes reported in more than 10 studies, publication bias was assessed visually using funnel plots and quantitatively evaluated with Egger’s test, where a p-value <0.05 was considered indicative of significant bias (15).
3. Results
3.1. Study selection and characteristics
The systematic search retrieved 5,417 records. Then, 670 studies were detected as duplicates and were removed. The 4,747 remained studies were screened using title and abstract. Likewise, the remained studies were checked for their eligibility for this study and we assessed their full-text. Finally, 59 studies (comprising 60 study arms) met our inclusion criteria and were included in this study. The study selection flow diagram is provided in the Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Flow diagram for selection and screening of studies.
The baseline characteristics of the included studies are presented in the Table 1. This meta-analysis included 2,401 men that were obese and undergone MBS. The study design of most of the included studies (49 studies) were prospective and 11 were retrospective. Included individuals were aged between 16.3 and 65 years. Also, included patients have experienced several type of MBS including Roux-en-Y GB, SG, a combination of GB and SG, and laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB). The evaluated outcomes were as follow: TT, FT, E2, SHBG, PRL, and IIEF.
Table 1.
Basic characteristics of the included studies.
| Study | Year | Study design | Country | Sample size | Age | Surgery type | Follow-up (months) | Assay method | Outcome indicators |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gao et al. | 2024 | Prospective | China | 34 | 25.59 | SG | 3, 6, 12 | Immunoassay | IIEF-5 |
| Bombardieri et al. | 2024 | Retrospective | Italy | 184 | 45.5 ± 11.9 | GB + SG | 6 | Immunoassay | TT |
| Javani et al. | 2023 | Prospective | Iran | 20 | 34.74 | GB + SG | 6 | Immunoassay | TT, IIEF-5 |
| Kaur et al. | 2023 | Prospective | America | 6 | 18.21 ± 0.84 | SG | 2 y | — | TT, E2, SHBG |
| Sultan et al. | 2023 | Prospective | Malaysia | 13 | 30–45 | Others | 3, 6 | — | IIEF-5 |
| Abouelgreed et al. | 2023 | Prospective | United Arab Emirates | 54 | 46 ± 4.83 | SG | 18 | Immunoassay | TT, FT, E2, SHBG, PRL |
| Jedamzik et al. | 2023 | Retrospective | Austria | 170 | 43.2 ± 12.9 | GB | 3, 6, 24 | — | TT, E2, SHBG |
| Nosrati et al. | 2023 | Retrospective | Iran | 41 | 39.43 ± 9.26 | GB + SG | 12 | — | IIEF |
| Taskin et al. | 2022 | Prospective | Türkiye | 166 | 51.5 ± 9.3 | SG | 6 | — | TT |
| Chen et al. | 2022 | Prospective | China | 59 | 32.1 ± 6.7 | GB + SG | 23.2 | — | TT, E2, PRL, IIEF |
| Farup et al. | 2022 | Prospective | Norway | 13 | 47.7 ± 8.5 | GB + SG | 12 | — | TT, SHBG |
| Miñambres et al. | 2022 | Prospective | Spain | 12 | 45 ± 4.87 | GB + SG | 6, 18 | Immunoassay | TT, FT, E2, SHBG, PRL |
| Dhindsa et al. | 2022 | Prospective | United States | 34 | 17.4 ± 1.5 | GB + SG | 6, 60 | — | TT, FT, E2, SHBG |
| Dilimulati et al. | 2021 | Retrospective | China | 55 | 28.9 ± 7.49 | SG | 3, 6, 12 | Immunoassay | TT |
| Fahmy et al. | 2021 | Prospective | Egypt | 82 | 39 ± 14.6 | SG | 12 | Immunoassay | IIEF |
| Fariello et al. | 2021 | Prospective | Brazil | 15 | 20–50 | GB | 3, 9, 12 | — | TT, FT, E2, SHBG |
| Gokalp et al. | 2021 | Prospective | Türkiye | 31 | 34 | SG | 12 | Radioimmunoassay | TT, E2, IIEF |
| Machado et al. | 2021 | Prospective | Brazil | 33 | 36.3 ± 8.1 | GB + SG | 6 | Immunoassay | TT, FT, E2, SHBG, PRL |
| Öncel et al. | 2021 | Prospective | Türkiye | 40 | 35.70 ± 4.22 | SG | 6 | — | IIEF-5 |
| Velde et al. | 2021 | Prospective | Belgium | 14 | 52 | GB | 1.5, 6, 12 | Immunoassay | TT, FT, E2, SHBG |
| Sarhan et al. | 2021 | Prospective | Egypt | 48 | 38.56 ± 10.8 | GB + SG | 12 | Immunoassay | TT, IIEF |
| Vincenzo et al. | 2020 | Prospective | Italy | 29 | 40.5 ± 9.9 | SG | 1 | — | TT, E2 |
| Karaca et al. | 2020 | Prospective | Türkiye | 36 | 51.5 ± 6.39 | SG | 6, 12 | Immunoassay | IIEF |
| Arolfo et al. | 2020 | Prospective | Italy | 44 | 43.45 | GB + SG | 12 | — | TT, FT, E2, SHBG, PRL |
| Beiglböck et al. | 2020 | Retrospective | Austria | 49 | 42.1 ± 11.93 | GB + SG | 18 | Immunoassay | TT, E2, SHBG |
| Calderón et al. | 2020 | Prospective | Dominican | 20 | 40 ± 8 | GB + SG | 24 | Radioimmunoassay | TT, FT, E2, SHBG |
| Cobeta et al. | 2020 | Prospective | Spain | 40 | 48.5 ± 9.24 | GB + SG | 6 | Immunoassay | TT, FT |
| Celikcan et al. | 2019 | Prospective | Türkiye | 10 | 35.4 ± 5.4 | LAGB | 6 | — | IIEF-5 |
| Carette et al. | 2019 | Prospective | France | 46 | 38.9 ± 7.9 | GB + SG | 6, 12 | Immunoassay | TT, E2, SHBG, IIEF-5 |
| Zhu et al. | 2019 | Prospective | China | 56 | 30.8 ± 7.8 | SG | 12 | — | TT, SHBG |
| Rigon et al. | 2019 | Retrospective | Brazil | 29 | 42.79 ± 9.50 | GB + SG | 6 | Immunoassay | TT, FT, SHBG |
| Samavat et al. | 2018 | Prospective | Italy | 23 | 38 ± 9 | GB | 6 | Immunoassay | TT, FT, E2, SHBG |
| Chin et al. | 2018 | Prospective | United States | 16 | 16.3 ± 1.2 | LAGB | 24 | Immunoassay | TT |
| Liu et al. | 2018 | Retrospective | China | 45 | 43.73 ± 10.13 | GB | 6, 12 | — | TT, FT, E2, SHBG |
| Gao et al. | 2018 | Prospective | China | 30 | 33.0 ± 9.5 | SG | 6 | — | TT, E2, SHBG |
| Aleid et al. | 2017 | Prospective | British | 30 | 46.98 ± 7.25 | GB + SG | 3, 6 | — | IIEF |
| Groutz et al. | 2017 | Prospective | Israel | 39 | 40.7 ± 12.4 | SG | 3 | — | IIEF |
| Bardisi et al. | 2016 | Prospective | Qatar | 46 | 36.65 ± 11.48 | SG | 12 | Immunoassay | TT, E2, PRL |
| Boonchaya et al. | 2016 | Prospective | Thailand | 29 | 30.8 ± 8.1 | GB + SG | 1, 6 | Immunoassay | TT, FT, E2, SHBG |
| Legro et al. | 2015 | Prospective | United States | 6 | 36.22 ± 3.9 | GB | 3, 6, 12 | Immunoassay | TT, E2, SHBG |
| Bekaert et al. | 2015 | Prospective | Belgium | 14 | 51 ± 12 | GB | 24 | — | TT, FT, E2, SHBG |
| Sarwer et al. | 2015 | Prospective | United States | 32 | 46.84 ± 10.66 | GB | 48 | — | TT, SHBG, IIEF |
| Samavat et al. (A) | 2014 | Prospective | Italy | 55 | 42.3 ± 11.6 | GB + SG | 6, 12 | Immunoassay | TT, FT, E2, SHBG |
| Samavat et al. (B) | 2014 | Prospective | Italy | 76 | 42 ± 11 | GB | 9 | Immunoassay | TT, FT, E2, SHBG |
| Aarts et al. | 2014 | Prospective | Netherland | 24 | 43.32 ± 1.76 | GB | 12 | — | TT, FT, E2, SHBG |
| Calderón et al. | 2014 | Prospective | Spain | 35 | 39.29 ± 9.42 | GB + SG | 6 | Radioimmunoassay | TT, FT, E2, SHBG |
| Li et al. | 2014 | Retrospective | China | 39 | 45.2 | GB | 12 | — | IIEF-5 |
| Mihalca et al. | 2014 | Prospective | Romania | 28 | 43.07 ± 9.56 | SG | 6 | — | TT, SHBG |
| Facchiano et al. | 2013 | Prospective | Italy | 20 | 37.95 | GB | 6 | Immunoassay | TT, FT, E2, SHBG |
| Ippersiel et al. | 2013 | Prospective | Belgium | 21 | 43 | GB + SG | 3, 12 | — | TT, FT, E2, SHBG |
| Luconi et al. | 2013 | Prospective | Italy | 24 | 39.96 ± 12.21 | GB | 6, 12 | Immunoassay | TT, E2, SHBG |
| Carretero et al. | 2013 | Prospective | Spain | 20 | 40 ± 10.34 | GB | 6 | — | TT, FT, E2, SHBG |
| Mora et al. | 2013 | Prospective | Spain | 39 | 43.5 | GB + SG | 12 | Radioimmunoassay | TT, FT, E2, SHBG, PRL |
| Pellitero et al. | 2012 | Prospective | Spain | 33 | 40.5 ± 9.9 | GB + SG | 12 | Immunoassay | TT, FT, E2, SHBG, PRL |
| Woodard et al. | 2012 | Prospective | America | 64 | 48.1 ± 1.3 | GB | 12 | — | TT |
| Ranasinghe et al. | 2011 | Retrospective | Australia | 34 | 52.8 ± 9.33 | GB | 31.79 | — | IIEF |
| Hammoud et al. | 2009 | Prospective | United States | 22 | 48.9 ± 1.2 | GB | 24 | Immunoassay | TT, FT, E2 |
| Alagna et al. | 2006 | Prospective | Italy | 20 | 21–63 | Others | 12 | — | TT, E2 |
| Bastounis et al. | 1998 | Prospective | Greece | 19 | 34.7 ± 7.7 | Others | 12 | — | TT, FT, E2, SHBG |
3.2. MBS and TT and FT
The included patients were followed in 3-time point including: 1–3, 6–9, and ≥12 months following MBS. Eight studies have reported the TT levels at 1–3 month, 22 at 6–9 month, and 29 at and ≥12 months pre and post MBS.
Analysis revealed a significant increase in serum TT levels following MBS across all post-operative intervals: 1–3 months (WMD: 5.46 nmol/L, 95% CI: 3.15, 7.77; p < 0.001); 6–9 months (WMD: 6.58 nmol/L, 95% CI: 5.12, 8.04, p < 0.001); and ≥12 months (WMD: 8.02 nmol/L, 95% CI: 5.85, 10.18, p < 0.001) (Figures 2A–C). However, subgroup analysis based on type of the surgery showed significant increase in serum TT levels in GB, SG, and GB plus SG across all time points (Table 2). Notably, at 6–9 months, GB-only studies demonstrated highly consistent effects (WMD: 5.82 nmol/L; 95% CI: 4.85–6.78; I2 = 0.0%) (Table 2).
Figure 2.
Forest plots for the effect of bariatric surgery on TT at (A) 1–3 M, (B) 6–9 M, (C) ≥ 12 M.
Table 2.
Subgroup analysis based on type of surgery.
| Subgroup | No. of studies | WMD (95% CI) | p-value | Meta-analysis results | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I2 (%) | p-value | ||||
| Sex hormones | |||||
| TT (nmol/L) at 1–3 months | |||||
| Type of surgery | |||||
| GB | 4 | 5.50 (0.46, 10.54) | 0.032 | 88.7 | <0.001 |
| SG | 2 | 7.13 (5.42, 8.85) | <0.001 | 29.4 | 0.234 |
| GB and SG | 2 | 3.11 (1.50, 4.73) | <0.001 | 17.9 | 0.270 |
| TT (nmol/L) at 6–9 months | |||||
| Type of surgery | |||||
| GB | 8 | 5.82 (4.85, 6.78) | <0.001 | 0.0 | 0.564 |
| SG | 4 | 6.11 (4.04, 8.18) | <0.001 | 81.2 | 0.001 |
| GB and SG | 10 | 7.17 (4.61, 9.74) | <0.001 | 96.1 | <0.001 |
| TT (nmol/L) at >12 months | |||||
| Type of surgery | |||||
| GB | 10 | 7.51 (6.01, 9.00) | <0.001 | 90.2 | <0.001 |
| SG | 6 | 8.04 (3.36, 12.73) | 0.001 | 97.5 | <0.001 |
| GB and SG | 11 | 7.64 (4.50, 10.78) | <0.001 | 98.3 | <0.001 |
| Others | 2 | 13.04 (−4.45, 30.54) | 0.144 | 98.1% | <0.001 |
| FT (pmol/L) at 1–3 months | |||||
| Type of surgery | |||||
| GB | 2 | 9.26 (−21.81, 40.32) | 0.559 | 0.0 | 0.576 |
| GB and SG | 2 | 11.98 (−15.12, 39.08) | 0.386 | 0.0 | 0.401 |
| FT (pmol/L) at 6–9 months | |||||
| Type of surgery | |||||
| GB | 6 | 41.05 (21.42, 60.67) | <0.001 | 13.4 | 0.329 |
| GB and SG | 7 | 86.12 (56.17, 116.07) | <0.001 | 50.9 | 0.057 |
| FT (pmol/L) at >12 months | |||||
| Type of surgery | |||||
| GB | 7 | 71.53 (5.47, 137.58) | 0.034 | 98.5 | <0.001 |
| SG | 1 | 140. (126.66, 153.34) | <0.001 | 0.0 | <0.001 |
| GB and SG | 7 | 86.62 (49.55, 123.69) | <0.001 | 78.6 | <0.001 |
| Others | 1 | 7.56 (−3.66, 18.78) | 0.187 | 0.0 | <0.001 |
| E2 (pmol/L) at 1–3 months | |||||
| Type of surgery | |||||
| GB | 4 | 3.83 (−5.23, 12.88) | 0.407 | 44.5 | 0.144 |
| SG | 1 | −28.30 (−49.33, −7.27) | 0.008 | 0.0 | <0.001 |
| GB and SG | 2 | 1.07 (−16.66, 18.80) | 0.906 | 0.0 | 0.892 |
| E2 (pmol/L) at 6–9 months | |||||
| Type of surgery | |||||
| GB | 9 | −14.44 (−25.39, −3.50) | 0.010 | 68.5 | 0.001 |
| SG | 1 | −32.67 (−132.92, 67.58) | 0.523 | 0.0 | <0.001 |
| GB and SG | 6 | −20.16 (−49.86, 9.55) | 0.184 | 83.1 | <0.001 |
| E2 (pmol/L) at >12 months | |||||
| Type of surgery | |||||
| GB | 9 | −12.06 (−16.24, −7.88) | <0.001 | 39.8 | 0.102 |
| SG | 4 | −5.23 (−7.71, −2.75) | <0.001 | 0.0 | 0.993 |
| GB and SG | 10 | −9.89 (−18.19, −1.58) | 0.020 | 28.0 | 0.187 |
| Others | 2 | −89.34 (−123.41, −55.27) | <0.001 | 0.0 | 0.529 |
| SHBG (nmol/L) at 1–3 months | |||||
| Type of surgery | |||||
| GB | 4 | 16.17 (6.82, 25.53) | 0.001 | 67.6 | 0.026 |
| GB and SG | 2 | 11.87 (−0.41, 24.14) | 0.058 | 77.5 | 0.035 |
| SHBG (nmol/L) at 6–9 months | |||||
| Type of surgery | |||||
| GB | 9 | 19.82 (14.11, 25.53) | <0.001 | 68.6 | 0.001 |
| SG | 2 | 10.83 (3.85, 17.81) | 0.002 | 77.1 | 0.037 |
| GB and SG | 7 | 18.67 (8.04, 29.29) | 0.001 | 94.7 | <0.001 |
| SHBG (nmol/L) at >12 months | |||||
| Type of surgery | |||||
| GB | 9 | 25.65 (14.29, 37.01) | <0.001 | 95.6 | <0.001 |
| SG | 3 | 16.16 (11.92, 20.39) | <0.001 | 50.5 | 0.133 |
| GB and SG | 10 | 18.92 (9.82, 28.01) | <0.001 | 95.5 | <0.001 |
| Others | 1 | 23.64 (10.63, 36.65) | <0.001 | 0.0 | <0.001 |
WMD, weighted mean difference; CI, confidence interval.
While, MBS was associated with non-significant effect in FT at 1–3 months (4 studies, WMD: 10.8 nmol/L, 95% CI: −9.62, 31.22, p = 0.300), and significant increase at 6–9 months (13 studies, WMD: 66.61 nmol/L, 95% CI: 44.68, 86.55, p < 0.001), and ≥12 months (16 studies, WMD: 78.94 nmol/L, 95% CI: 42.82, 115.07, p < 0.001) (Figures 3A–C). In addition, subgroup analysis based on type of surgery revealed that serum FT levels has not been affected following surgery in GB and GB plus SG type at 1–3 months. While, it was increased in all type of surgery at 6–9, and ≥12 months (Table 2). FT effect estimates stratified by surgery type and follow-up duration presented significant increases emerging at 6–9 months across all procedure types including (GB; WMD: 41.05 nmol/L;, 95% CI: 21.42, 60.67, p < 0.001) and (GB + SG; WMD: 86.12 nmol/L;, 95% CI: 56.17, 116.07, p < 0.001) and persisting at ≥12 months (GB + SG; WMD: 86.62 nmol/L;, 95% CI: 49.55, 123.69, p < 0.001).
Figure 3.
(A–C) Forest plots for the effect of bariatric surgery on FT at (A) 1–3 M, (B) 6–9 M, (C) ≥ 12 M.
3.3. MBS and E2
The pooled analysis indicated that the serum E2 levels was not affected following MBS at 1–3 months (7 studies; WMD: 0.15 pmol/L, 95% CI: −8.56, 8.87, p = 0.973). In contrast, analysis revealed a significant decrease in E2 levels at 6–9 months (16 studies; WMD: −14.52 nmol/L, 95% CI: −24.63, −4.40, p = 0.005), and ≥12 months (25 studies; WMD: −11.63 nmol/L; 95% CI: −15.75, −7.51, p < 0.001) (Figures 4A–C). Moreover, subgroup analysis indicated that the type of surgery whether GB or SG did not significantly influence the overall effect on E2 levels at 1–3 months. Whereas, based on subgroup analysis GB type showed significant decline in E2 levels at 6–9 months (WMD: −14.44 nmol/L; 95% CI: −25.39, −3.50, p < 0.001), nut no effect in GB plus SG type. Importantly, at ≥12 months all surgery types were accompanied with significant reduction in E2 levels (Table 2).
Figure 4.
Forest plots for the effect of bariatric surgery on E2 at (A–C): (A) 1–3 M, (B) 6–9 M, (C) ≥ 12 M.
3.4. MBS and SHBG
The combined effect of included studies for SHBG value showed elevated levels of SHBG following bariatric surgery across all time points: 1–3 months (6 studies; WMD: 14.56 nmol/L, 95% CI: 7.61, 21.51; p < 0.001); 6–9 months (18 studies; WMD: 18.08 nmol/L, 95% CI: 12.18, 23.98, p < 0.001); and ≥12 months (23 studies; WMD: 23.64 nmol/L, 95% CI: 10.63, 36.65, p < 0.001) (Figures 5A–C). In addition, subgroup analysis indicated that any type of surgery is accompanied with a significant increase in the SHBG levels across all post-operative intervals except for GB plus SG surgery at 1–3 months which failed to show any significant changes in SHBG levels (Table 2).
Figure 5.
Forest plots for the effect of bariatric surgery on SHBG at (A) 1–3 M, (B) 6–9 M, (C) ≥ 12 M.
3.5. MBS and PRL
Eight studies have evaluated the PRL levels and pooled analysis demonstrated that PRL levels was decreased (WMD: −76.48 mIU/L, 95% CI: −126.35, −40.0, p = 0.003; I2: 88.7%, p < 0.001) (Figure 6). Also, subgroup analysis based on type of surgery showed similar results in each surgery types including SG, and GB plus SG (Table 2).
Figure 6.
Forest plots for the effect of bariatric surgery on PRL.
3.6. MBS and IIEF score
Eleven studies have evaluated the semen parameters and reported the IIEF levels. The combined effect of included studies showed that the IIEF score is increased following surgery (WMD: 9.36, 95% CI: 5.48, 13.24, p < 0.001; I2: 82.9%, p < 0.001) (Figure 7). Furthermore, subgroup analysis showed that SG, GB plus SG, and LAGB have shown increased level of IIEF score in post-operative state too. While, GB could not reveal significant changes following MBS (Table 2).
Figure 7.
Forest plots for the effect of bariatric surgery on IIEF.
3.7. Sensitivity analysis and publication bias
This study employed sensitivity analysis to present robust findings. It has been demonstrated that leave-one-out approach did not show any study to affect the overall results which is a proof of the results robustness.
The publication bias was evaluated using Begg’s test and it has been shown that Begg’s test was >0.05 for all study outcomes across all post-operative intervals except for TT at >12 months (p = 0.002), FT at 6–9 months (p = 0.044), and SHBG at >12 months (p = 0.042). In addition, funnel plots have been provided for visual inspection too (Supplementary Figure 1).
3.8. Quality evaluation, meta-regression, and GRADE assessment
The results of quality assessment of included studies using NOS is provided in Table 3. Most of the included studies were scored ≥6 which offers an acceptable quality for studies. Meta-regression analyses revealed that none of the examined covariates, including surgical type, follow-up duration, baseline BMI, or study quality, significantly explained the observed heterogeneity (p > 0.05 for all).
Table 3.
The quality assessment of the included studies using NOS.
| Study | Year | Selection | Comparability | Outcome | Overall score | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | #2 | #3 | #4 | #1 | #1 | #2 | #3 | |||
| Gao et al. | 2024 | * | * | * | — | * | * | — | — | 5 |
| Bombardieri et al. | 2024 | * | * | * | — | * | * | * | — | 6 |
| Javani et al. | 2023 | * | * | * | — | * | * | * | — | 6 |
| Kaur et al. | 2023 | * | * | * | — | * | * | — | * | 6 |
| Sultan et al. | 2023 | * | * | * | — | * | * | * | — | 6 |
| Abouelgreed et al. | 2023 | * | * | * | — | * | * | — | * | 6 |
| Jedamzik et al. | 2023 | * | * | * | — | * | * | * | — | 6 |
| Nosrati et al. | 2023 | * | * | * | — | * | * | — | * | 6 |
| Taskin et al. | 2022 | * | * | * | — | * | * | * | — | 6 |
| Chen et al. | 2022 | * | * | * | — | * | * | * | * | 7 |
| Farup et al. | 2022 | * | * | * | — | * | * | — | * | 6 |
| Miñambres et al. | 2022 | * | * | * | — | * | * | * | — | 6 |
| Dhindsa et al. | 2022 | * | * | * | — | * | * | * | — | 6 |
| Dilimulati et al. | 2021 | * | * | * | — | * | * | * | — | 6 |
| Fahmy et al. | 2021 | * | * | * | — | * | * | — | * | 6 |
| Fariello et al. | 2021 | * | * | * | — | * | * | * | * | 7 |
| Gokalp et al. | 2021 | * | * | * | — | * | * | * | * | 7 |
| Velotti et al. | 2021 | * | * | * | — | * | * | * | * | 7 |
| Machado et al. | 2021 | * | * | * | — | * | * | * | * | 7 |
| Öncel et al. | 2021 | * | * | * | — | * | * | * | * | 7 |
| Velde et al. | 2021 | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | 8 |
| Sarhan et al. | 2021 | * | * | * | — | * | * | * | * | 7 |
| Vincenzo et al. | 2020 | * | * | * | * | * | * | — | — | 6 |
| Karaca et al. | 2020 | * | * | * | — | * | * | — | — | 5 |
| Arolfo et al. | 2020 | * | * | * | — | * | * | * | * | 7 |
| Beiglböck et al. | 2020 | * | * | * | — | * | * | * | * | 7 |
| Calderón et al. | 2020 | * | * | * | — | * | * | * | — | 6 |
| Cobeta et al. | 2020 | * | * | * | — | * | * | * | * | 7 |
| Celikcan et al. | 2019 | * | * | * | * | * | * | — | — | 6 |
| Carette et al. | 2019 | * | * | * | — | * | * | * | — | 6 |
| Zhu et al. | 2019 | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | 8 |
| Rigon et al. | 2019 | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | — | 7 |
| Samavat et al. | 2018 | * | * | * | — | * | * | * | — | 6 |
| Chin et al. | 2018 | * | * | * | — | * | * | * | — | 6 |
| Liu et al. | 2018 | * | * | * | — | * | * | * | — | 6 |
| Gao et al. | 2018 | * | * | * | — | * | * | * | * | 7 |
| Aleid et al. | 2017 | * | * | * | — | * | * | * | — | 6 |
| Groutz et al. | 2017 | * | * | * | — | * | * | — | * | 6 |
| Bardisi et al. | 2016 | * | * | * | — | * | * | * | — | 6 |
| Boonchaya et al. | 2016 | * | * | * | — | * | * | * | — | 6 |
| Legro et al. | 2015 | * | * | * | — | * | * | * | — | 6 |
| Bekaert et al. | 2015 | * | * | * | — | * | * | — | * | 6 |
| Sarwer et al. | 2015 | * | * | * | — | * | * | * | * | 7 |
| Samavat et al.(A) | 2014 | * | * | * | — | * | * | * | * | 7 |
| Samavat et al.(B) | 2014 | * | * | * | — | * | * | * | — | 6 |
| Aarts et al. | 2014 | * | * | * | — | * | * | — | * | 6 |
| Calderón et al. | 2014 | * | * | * | — | * | * | * | * | 7 |
| Li et al. | 2014 | * | * | * | — | * | * | * | — | 6 |
| Mihalca et al. | 2014 | * | * | * | — | * | * | — | — | 5 |
| Facchiano et al. | 2013 | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | — | 7 |
| Ippersiel et al. | 2013 | * | * | * | — | * | * | * | * | 7 |
| Luconi et al. | 2013 | * | * | * | — | * | * | * | — | 6 |
| Carretero et al. | 2013 | * | * | * | — | * | * | * | — | 6 |
| Mora et al. | 2013 | * | * | * | — | * | * | * | * | 7 |
| Pellitero et al. | 2012 | * | * | * | — | * | * | — | * | 6 |
| Woodard et al. | 2012 | * | * | * | — | * | * | * | * | 7 |
| Ranasinghe et al. | 2011 | * | * | * | — | * | * | — | * | 6 |
| Hammoud et al. | 2009 | * | * | * | — | * | * | — | * | 6 |
| Alagna et al. | 2006 | * | * | * | — | * | * | * | * | 7 |
| Bastounis et al. | 1998 | * | * | * | — | * | * | * | * | 7 |
*Mean one points.
The quality of evidence has been assessed using GRADE approach (Table 4). Accordingly, E2 at >12 M rated as high quality of evidence. However, other study outcomes were considered as moderate or low.
Table 4.
Summary of findings and quality of evidence assessment using the GRADE approach.
| No of studies | ES (95% CI) | Risk of bias | Inconsistency | Indirectness | Imprecision | Publication bias | Quality of evidence | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TT at 1–3 M | 7 | 5.46 (3.15, 7.77) | Not serious | Serious | Not serious | Not serious | Not serious | Moderate |
| TT at 6–9 M | 22 | 6.58 (5.12, 8.04) | Not serious | Serious | Not serious | Not serious | Not serious | Moderate |
| TT at >12 M | 29 | 8.02 (5.85, 10.18) | Not serious | Serious | Not serious | Not serious | Serious | Low |
| FT at 1–3 M | 4 | 10.80 (−9.62, 31.22) | Not serious | Not serious | Not serious | Serious | Not serious | Moderate |
| FT at 6–9 M | 13 | 65.61 (44.68, 86.55) | Not serious | Not serious | Not serious | Not serious | Serious | Moderate |
| FT at >12 M | 16 | 78.94 (42.82, 115.07) | Not serious | Serious | Not serious | Not serious | Not serious | Moderate |
| E2 at 1–3 M | 7 | 0.15 (−8.56, 8.87) | Not serious | Not serious | Not serious | Serious | Not serious | Moderate |
| E2 at 6–9 M | 16 | −14.52 (−24.63, −4.40) | Not serious | Serious | Not serious | Not serious | Not serious | Moderate |
| E2 at >12 M | 25 | −11.63 (−15.75, −7.51) | Not serious | Not serious | Not serious | Not serious | Not serious | High |
| SHBG at 1–3 M | 6 | 14.56 (7.61, 21.51) | Not serious | Serious | Not serious | Not serious | Not serious | Moderate |
| SHBG at 6–9 M | 18 | 18.08 (12.18, 23.98) | Not serious | Serious | Not serious | Not serious | Not serious | Moderate |
| SHBG at >12 M | 23 | 20.80 (15.70, 25.89) | Not serious | Serious | Not serious | Not serious | Serious | Low |
| PRL | 8 | −76.48 (−126.35, −26.61) | Not serious | Serious | Not serious | Not serious | Not serious | Moderate |
| IIEF | 11 | 9.36 (5.48, 13.24) | Not serious | Serious | Not serious | Not serious | Not serious | Moderate |
4. Discussion
The adverse effects of obesity on male reproductive function represent a significant and growing global public health concern. MBS has garnered increasing attention for its potential as an effective therapeutic strategy for obesity. In addition, evidence indicates that MBS have beneficial effects on reproductive health outcomes too (16). Accordingly, this meta-analysis synthesizes the available evidence to evaluate the impact of MBS on male sex hormone profiles, semen parameters, and sexual function. Our findings illustrated that MBS leads to significant improvements in the sex hormone status among obese men. However, its effect on semen quality appears to be challenging. The MBS has distinct effects on semen quality based on various surgical techniques and follow-up duration.
Our findings demonstrated that obese men have increased levels of TT and FT across all post-operative intervals. This consistent elevation in circulating androgens offers endocrinological responses to MBS. Obese individuals experience hypogonadotropic hypogonadism which is characterized by reduced testosterone and testicular function (15, 17, 18). Likewise, the MBS is able to reverse this process and exert its beneficial effects on TT and FT levels. Also, mechanistically MBS contribute to reduced adipose tissue which is accompanied with diminished activity of aromatase to converts androgens to estrogens (19, 20).
Despite the consistency in the direction and statistical significance of MBS, there was a statistical significance heterogeneity in pooled estimates for TT and FT. Subgroup analysis at 6–9 months, based on surgical procedure revealed that GB-type surgery was associated with very low heterogeneity (I2 = 0.0%) and a significant effect. This finding suggests that a standardized surgical approach, such as GB-type procedures, may lead to a more consistent hormonal response. For FT, heterogeneity measurement is critical too. It has been shown that, at 1–3 months, both GB- and (GB + SG)-type surgery presented low heterogeneity (I2 = 0.0%) with non-significant effects. It means that, no heterogeneity could not affect the FT levels in postoperative period and it may need more time to be altered. Furthermore, it was demonstrated that FT levels were significantly affected at 6–9 months and >12 months following GB-type, (GB + SG)-type, and SG-type surgeries, with low heterogeneity observed for each (I2 = 0.0%).
A decrease in E2 levels is ultimately associated with an increase in testosterone synthesis (21). An increase in testosterone of 8.02 nmol/L (over ≥12 months) is clinically significant, as it is sufficient to move a patient from the hypogonadal range (<8 nmol/L) into the eugonadal range (>12 nmol/L). For erectile function, the 9.36-point improvement in IIEF-5 score substantially exceeds the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of 4-5 points, indicating a tangible and meaningful improvement for the patient. The 11.63 pmol/L reduction in E2 represents a normalization of the hyperestrogenic state typical of male obesity, thereby relieving inhibitory feedback on the HPG axis (22). The 23.64 nmol/L increase in SHBG reflects a resolution of underlying metabolic dysfunction and the normalization of hepatic protein synthesis (23).
Moreover, this surgical intervention was associated with decreased E2 levels in obese men at 6–9 months and beyond 12 months of follow-up. This finding constitutes a complementary finding to the abovementioned androgens. Increased circulating estrogens in obesity suppresses LH secretion and strengthens testosterone deficiency (24). Therefore, the decrease in E2 after surgery follows the elimination of the inhibitory effect of this signal. In this context, several underlying mechanisms are probable. It has been proposed that reduced availability of aromatase substrates, downregulation of aromatase activity, and altered SHBG may be involved in the reduced level of E2 (25–27). Increased levels of TT, FT, and decreased levels of E2 simultaneously suggest hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal (HPG) axis homeostasis (28). Moreover, based on subgroup analysis, all subgroups demonstrated significant E2 reductions with low heterogeneity (GB: I2 = 39.8%; SG: I2 = 0.0%; GB + SG: I2 = 28.0%). Over time, heterogeneity decreased and the overall effect became statistically significant across all surgery types.
It is worth noting that SHBG levels are increased in post-operative state in obese men across all time points which is indicating a hallmark endocrinological improvement (29, 30). This finding shares a valuable effect of surgery in obese men. The postoperative increase in SHBG is attributable to several probable mechanisms. Previous studies have introduced the insulin resistance as a characteristic of obesity (31, 32). Whereas, significant reduction in insulin concentrations happens in postoperative state and contribute to improved insulin sensitivity (33, 34). However, the role of improved inflammatory cytokine could not be ignored in this regard (35, 36). Also, it seems that SHBG increase is integrated to observed increase in TT and FT levels androgen recovery, contributing to TT elevation.
The postoperative decline in PRL concentrations signifies the improvement of metabolic disturbance in obese patients. The role of PRL in male reproductive health explain the observed effect (37). The PRL modulates gonadotropin secretion in men (38). Accordingly, MBS is able to restore LH pulsatility and testosterone secretion in male (39, 40).
The recent meta-analysis by Puia et al. (41) shared distinct results in term of TT and SHBG levels in men. In contrast, our study employed a leave-one-out sensitivity analysis, which confirmed that no single study disproportionately influenced the pooled estimates, indicating robust and stable results. Additionally, we applied the GRADE framework to assess certainty of evidence; the findings were downgraded to moderate quality, reflecting methodological rigor and transparency. The discrepancy between our findings and those of Puia et al. may be attributed to several key differences: (i) the smaller number of studies included in the prior meta-analysis, which may have limited statistical power and precision; (ii) heterogeneity in study populations (e.g., baseline testosterone status, age, comorbidities); (iii) variations in surgical techniques; (iv) differences in follow-up duration, as longer-term testosterone changes may not be captured in studies with shorter observation periods; (v) study design; (vi) bile acid and microbiota signalling are affected in malaborptive procedure. Bile acids may suppress gonadotropin secretion, whereas microbiota exert direct spermatotoxic effects; (vii) nutritional deficiencies and malabsorption. Postoperative micronutrient deficiencies (specifically zinc, selenium, vitamin B12, and vitamin D) are associated with impaired spermatogenesis. Previous studies that did not report postoperative micronutrient status, this could explain more different results. These factors collectively underscore the importance of updated evidence synthesis with rigorous sensitivity and certainty assessments.
Accordingly, careful interpretation of reproductive outcomes following MBS must account for the potential role of micronutrient deficiencies. Patients undergoing GB-type procedures are at greater risk for such deficiencies compared to those undergoing SG. Several micronutrients are known to play critical roles in male reproductive function. Zinc is essential for spermatogenesis and testosterone synthesis (42). Selenium supports the antioxidant defense system and contributes to the maintenance of male reproductive health (43). Folate and vitamin B12 are involved in methylation processes, and deficiencies in these nutrients can lead to impaired spermatogenesis and increased sperm DNA fragmentation (44). Vitamin D deficiency has also been associated with impaired reproductive function, while vitamin E exerts protective effects through the prevention of oxidative damage (45, 46). Importantly, even with apparently adequate intake, deficiencies in key micronutrients such as copper, zinc, and vitamin D may develop over time. This observation underscores the importance of active, routine monitoring rather than passive supplementation alone. Individualized treatment approaches with follow-up at 3–6 month intervals may optimize reproductive outcomes. Therefore, periodic monitoring of predefined micronutrient status is strongly recommended in male patients following MBS.
Despite the important findings post-MBS, sustained weight loss and reproductive improvements are critical. A systematic review stated that 76% of SG patients had experienced significant weight regain at 6 year follow-up (47). Similarly, another meta-analysis declared overally, 49% weight regain for post-MBS and 42% weight regain for post-GB specifically (48). In this context, the Pham et al.’s (49) trial demonstrated that, FT and TT increment was persistent at 5 years. However, these improvements are guaranteed with sustained weight management in patients (49). While, Dhindsa et al.’s (50) study indicated that patients who had reported weight regain had a decrease in TT levels. Evidence supports that hormonal parameters do not revert to baseline when weight loss is sustained (50).
This study has some limitations too. First, high heterogeneity limits the generalizability of the findings. Second, the publication bias for TT at >12 months, FT at 6–9 months, and SHBG at >12 months affects the observed finding. Third, there was limited data in term of adverse effects such as micronutrient deficiency and their interaction with reproductive health. The influence of surgical type should not be overlooked. SG appears to exert a more consistent effect on SG than GB, possibly owing to the latter’s association with the malabsorption of key micronutrients such as zinc and selenium (51). The primary studies included in this meta-analysis provided limited and inconsistently reported data on micronutrient malabsorption. Consequently, we were unable to perform quantitative synthesis or subgroup analyses to assess the direct effect of specific nutrient deficiencies on study outcomes. Forth, lack of data on functional fertility endpoints (sperm DNA fragmentation, live birth rates). Fifth, the included studies span multiple WHO classification editions (4th, 5th, and 6th), which employ different reference values and methodologies. The pooled results may therefore be influenced by unrecognized differences in outcome classification across studies, and should be interpreted with caution.
5. Conclusion
The present meta-analysis provides a comprehensive and integrated synthesis of the available evidence examining the impact of MBS on male reproductive health. Our findings demonstrated that MBS is able to induce an increase on the levels of androgens including TT at all-time points and FT at 6–9, and >12 months follow-up duration. Moreover, it exerts favorable effects on E2 (at 6–9 and >12 months follow-up duration), PRL and IIEF score. In addition, SHBG level was affected following MBS significantly in obese men. However, there are many gaps which needs to shift from heterogeneous, underpowered retrospective studies that gather reproductive, nutritional, and metabolic signatures.
Funding Statement
The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. This study was supported by grants from Natural Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province (LMS26H070001).
Footnotes
Edited by: Mohamed Hany, Alexandria University, Egypt
Reviewed by: José Paz, National University of San Marcos, Peru
Anwar Abouelnasr, Alexandria University, Egypt
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Author contributions
RZ: Methodology, Validation, Data curation, Conceptualization, Project administration, Supervision, Investigation, Software, Visualization, Funding acquisition, Writing – original draft, Resources, Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing. LL: Validation, Writing – original draft, Data curation, Project administration, Conceptualization, Resources, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Software, Writing – review & editing, Visualization, Formal analysis, Investigation.
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that Generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Supplementary material
The Supplementary material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2026.1775651/full#supplementary-material
References
- 1.Finer N. Medical consequences of obesity. Medicine. (2015) 43:88–93. doi: 10.1016/j.mpmed.2014.11.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Ahmed SK, Mohammed RA. Obesity: prevalence, causes, consequences, management, preventive strategies and future research directions. Metabol Open. (2025) 27:100375. doi: 10.1016/j.metop.2025.100375, [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Mohajan D, Mohajan HK. Obesity and its related diseases: a new escalating alarming in global health. J Innov Med Res. (2023) 2:12–23. doi: 10.56397/jimr/2023.03.04 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Schon SB, Cabre HE, Redman LM. The impact of obesity on reproductive health and metabolism in reproductive-age females. Fertil Steril. (2024) 122:194–203. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2024.04.036, [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Barbouni K, Jotautis V, Metallinou D, Diamanti A, Orovou E, Liepinaitienė A, et al. When weight matters: how obesity impacts reproductive health and pregnancy-a systematic review. Curr Obes Rep. (2025) 14:37. doi: 10.1007/s13679-025-00629-9, [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Kang Y, Li P, Yuan S, Fu S, Zhang X, Zhang J, et al. Progress in investigating the impact of obesity on male reproductive function. Biomedicines. (2025) 13:2054. doi: 10.3390/biomedicines13092054, [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Chacon D, Bernardino T, Geraghty F, Rodriguez AC, Fiani B, Chadhaury A, et al. Bariatric surgery with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy for treatment of obesity and comorbidities: current evidence and practice. Cureus. (2022) 14:e25762. doi: 10.7759/cureus.25762, [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Cordero P, Li J, Oben J. Bariatric surgery as a treatment for metabolic syndrome. J R Coll Physicians Edinb. (2017) 47:364–8. doi: 10.4997/JRCPE.2017.414, [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Ji Y, Lee H, Kaura S, Yip J, Sun H, Guan L, et al. Effect of bariatric surgery on metabolic diseases and underlying mechanisms. Biomolecules. (2021) 11:1582. doi: 10.3390/biom11111582, [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Di Vincenzo A, Busetto L, Vettor R, Rossato M. Obesity, male reproductive function and bariatric surgery. Front Endocrinol. (2018) 9:769. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2018.00769, [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Pozzi E, Able CA, Kohn TP, Salonia A, Ramasamy R. Testosterone levels increase following bariatric surgery-validation of preceding literature in a large-scale population analysis. Andrology. (2025) 13:431–8. doi: 10.1111/andr.13689, [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.El Bardisi H, Majzoub A, Arafa M, AlMalki A, Al Said S, Khalafalla K, et al. Effect of bariatric surgery on semen parameters and sex hormone concentrations: a prospective study. Reprod Biomed Online. (2016) 33:606–11. doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2016.08.008, [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. (2021) 372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71, [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Stang A. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol. (2010) 25:603–5. doi: 10.1007/s10654-010-9491-z, [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Basaria S. Male hypogonadism. Lancet. (2014) 383:1250–63. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61126-5, [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Moxthe LC, Sauls R, Ruiz M, Stern M, Gonzalvo J, Gray HL. Effects of bariatric surgeries on male and female fertility: a systematic review. J Reprod Infertil. (2020) 21:71–86. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Grossmann M. Hypogonadism and male obesity: focus on unresolved questions. Clin Endocrinol. (2018) 89:11–21. doi: 10.1111/cen.13723, [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Carrageta DF, Oliveira PF, Alves MG, Monteiro MP. Obesity and male hypogonadism: tales of a vicious cycle. Obes Rev. (2019) 20:1148–58. doi: 10.1111/obr.12863, [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Frikke-Schmidt H, O’Rourke RW, Lumeng CN, Sandoval D, Seeley RJ. Does bariatric surgery improve adipose tissue function? Obes Rev. (2016) 17:795–809. doi: 10.1111/obr.12429, [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Lecoutre S, Rebière C, Marcelin G, Clément K. How does bariatric surgery remodel adipose tissue? Ann Endocrinol. (2024) 85:175–8. doi: 10.1016/j.ando.2024.05.008, [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Olasore HSA, Oyedeji TA, Olawale MO, Ogundele OI, Faleti JO-O. Relationship between testosterone-estradiol ratio and some anthropometric and metabolic parameters among Nigerian men. Metabol Open. (2023) 18:100249. doi: 10.1016/j.metop.2023.100249, [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Rubinow KB. "Estrogens and body weight regulation in men". In: F Mauvais-Jarvis, editor. Sex and Gender Factors Affecting Metabolic Homeostasis, Diabetes and Obesity. Berlin: Springer; (2017). p. 285–313. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Luo J, Chen Q, Shen T, Wang X, Fang W, Wu X, et al. Association of sex hormone-binding globulin with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in Chinese adults. Nutr Metab. (2018) 15:79. doi: 10.1186/s12986-018-0313-8, [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Kunimura Y, Iwata K, Ishii H, Ozawa H. Chronic estradiol exposure suppresses luteinizing hormone surge without affecting kisspeptin neurons and estrogen receptor alpha in anteroventral periventricular nucleus. Biol Reprod. (2024) 110:90–101. doi: 10.1093/biolre/ioad129, [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Parween S, Cancio MF, Benito-Sanz S, Camats N, Velazquez M, López-Siguero J, et al. Molecular Basis of Aromatase Deficiency in a 46, XX Patient with Mutation of Arginine 550 to Tryptophan in POR: Expanding the Endocrine Phenotype in PORD. (2019) Available online at: https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/201909.0103/v1 (Accessed September 9, 2019).
- 26.Patel S. Disruption of aromatase homeostasis as the cause of a multiplicity of ailments: a comprehensive review. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. (2017) 168:19–25. doi: 10.1016/j.jsbmb.2017.01.009, [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Guercio GV, Saraco NI, Costanzo M, Marino RM, Belgorosky A. "Human aromatase deficiency". In: Reference Module in Biomedical Sciences. Amsterdam: Elsevier; (2018) [Google Scholar]
- 28.Acevedo-Rodriguez A, Kauffman A, Cherrington B, Borges C, Roepke TA, Laconi M. Emerging insights into hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis regulation and interaction with stress signalling. J Neuroendocrinol. (2018) 30:e12590. doi: 10.1111/jne.12590, [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Di Stasi V, Maseroli E, Rastrelli G, Scavello I, Cipriani S, Todisco T, et al. SHBG as a marker of NAFLD and metabolic impairments in women referred for oligomenorrhea and/or hirsutism and in women with sexual dysfunction. Front Endocrinol. (2021) 12:641446. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2021.641446, [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Bourebaba N, Ngo T, Śmieszek A, Bourebaba L, Marycz K. Sex hormone binding globulin as a potential drug candidate for liver-related metabolic disorders treatment. Biomed Pharmacother. (2022) 153:113261. doi: 10.1016/j.biopha.2022.113261, [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Pérez MR, Medina-Gómez G. Obesity, adipogenesis and insulin resistance. Endocrinol Nutr. (2011) 58:360–9. doi: 10.1016/j.endoen.2011.05.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Choo YN, Ravi RN, Subramaniyan V. Insulin resistance induced by obesity: mechanisms, metabolic implications and therapeutic approaches. Mol Biol Rep. (2026) 53:357. doi: 10.1007/s11033-026-11509-3, [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Shantavasinkul PC, Muehlbauer MJ, Bain JR, Ilkayeva OR, Craig DM, Newgard CB, et al. Improvement in insulin resistance after gastric bypass surgery is correlated with a decline in plasma 2-hydroxybutyric acid. Surg Obes Relat Dis. (2018) 14:1126–32. doi: 10.1016/j.soard.2018.03.033, [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Brzozowska MM, Isaacs M, Bliuc D, Baldock PA, Eisman JA, White CP, et al. Effects of bariatric surgery and dietary intervention on insulin resistance and appetite hormones over a 3 year period. Sci Rep. (2023) 13:6032. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-33317-6, [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.de Souza Bett G, Schuelter-Trevisol F, do Nascimento RR, Fernandes BB, da Silva LE, da Silva MR, et al. Bariatric surgery reduces lipid profile and oxidative stress in patients with obesity: a prospective cohort study. J Metab Bariatr Surg. (2025) 14:32–42. doi: 10.17476/jmbs.2025.14.1.32, [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Lautenbach A, Stoll F, Mann O, Busch P, Huber TB, Kielstein H, et al. Long-term improvement of chronic low-grade inflammation after bariatric surgery. Obes Surg. (2021) 31:2913–20. doi: 10.1007/s11695-021-05315-y, [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Raut S, Deshpande S, Balasinor NH. Unveiling the role of prolactin and its receptor in male reproduction. Horm Metab Res. (2019) 51:215–9. doi: 10.1055/a-0859-1144, [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Hodson DJ, Townsend J, Tortonese DJ. Characterization of the effects of prolactin in gonadotroph target cells. Biol Reprod. (2010) 83:1046–55. doi: 10.1095/biolreprod.110.084947, [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Javani S, Mosapour E, Hoseine S, Ashrafi A, Farhadi E. Analysis of semen parameters, and hormonal changes of FSH, LH, testosterone, and libido following bariatric surgery. J Family Med Prim Care. (2023) 12:2596–601. doi: 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_413_23, [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Emami MR, Safabakhsh M, Khorshidi M, Moghaddam OM, Mohammed SH, Zarezadeh M, et al. Effect of bariatric surgery on endogenous sex hormones and sex hormone-binding globulin levels: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Obes Relat Dis. (2021) 17:1621–36. doi: 10.1016/j.soard.2021.05.003, [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Puia D, Ivanuta M, Pricop C. Effect of bariatric surgery on male infertility: an updated meta-analysis and literature review. World J Mens Health. (2025) 43:807–17. doi: 10.5534/wjmh.240147, [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Fallah A, Mohammad-Hasani A, Colagar AH. Zinc is an essential element for male fertility: a review of Zn roles in men’s health, germination, sperm quality, and fertilization. J Reprod Infertil. (2018) 19:69–81. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Qazi IH, Angel C, Yang H, Zoidis E, Pan B, Wu Z, et al. Role of selenium and selenoproteins in male reproductive function: a review of past and present evidences. Antioxidants. (2019) 8:268. doi: 10.3390/antiox8080268, [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Yuan HF, Zhao K, Zang Y, Liu CY, Hu ZY, Wei JJ, et al. Effect of folate deficiency on promoter methylation and gene expression of Esr1, Cav1, and Elavl1, and its influence on spermatogenesis. Oncotarget. (2017) 8:24130–41. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.15731, [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Banks N, Sun F, Krawetz SA, Coward RM, Masson P, Smith JF, et al. Male vitamin D status and male factor infertility. Fertil Steril. (2021) 116:973–9. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2021.06.035, [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Doostabadi MR, Hassanzadeh-Taheri M, Asgharzadeh M, Mohammadzadeh M. Protective effect of vitamin E on sperm parameters, chromatin quality, and DNA fragmentation in mice treated with different doses of ethanol: an experimental study. Int J Reprod Biomed. (2021) 19:525–36. doi: 10.18502/ijrm.v19i6.9374, [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Lauti M, Kularatna M, Hill AG, MacCormick AD. Weight regain following sleeve gastrectomy-a systematic review. Obes Surg. (2016) 26:1326–34. doi: 10.1007/s11695-016-2152-x, [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Reis MG, Moreira LFGG, de Andra Carvalho LSV, de Castro CT, Vieira RAL, Guimarães NS. Weight regain after bariatric surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Obes Med. (2024) 45:100528. doi: 10.1016/j.obmed.2023.100528 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Pham NH, Bena J, Bhatt DL, Kennedy L, Schauer PR, Kashyap SR. Increased free testosterone levels in men with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes five years after randomization to bariatric surgery. Obes Surg. (2018) 28:277–80. doi: 10.1007/s11695-017-2881-5, [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Dhindsa S, Ghanim H, Jenkins T, Inge TH, Harmon CM, Ghoshal A, et al. High prevalence of subnormal testosterone in obese adolescent males: reversal with bariatric surgery. Eur J Endocrinol. (2022) 186:319–27. doi: 10.1530/EJE-21-0545, [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Gokalp F, Koras O, Ugur M, Yildirak E, Sigva H, Porgali SB, et al. Bariatric surgery has positive effects on patients’ and their partners’ sexual function: a prospective study. Andrology. (2021) 9:1119–25. doi: 10.1111/andr.13000, [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Data Availability Statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.