Table 1.
Comparison of sociodemographic and clinical parameters between patients with obesity from Poland and Germany n = 564.
| Poland | Germany | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | Conservatively Treated Patients | Bariatric or Endoscopic Treated Patients | Total | Conservatively Treated Patients | Bariatric or Endoscopic Treated Patients | |
| Group size n (%) | 354 | 269 (75.98) | 85 (24.02) | 210 | 138 (65.71) | 72 (34.29) |
| Sex: | ||||||
| Male n (%) | 80 (22.60) | 65 (24.16) | 15 (17.65) | 52 (24.76) (p = 0.5369) b |
30 (21.74) | 22 (30.56) |
| Female n (%) | 274 (77.40) | 204 (75.84) | 70 (82.35) p = 0.21049 a |
158 (75.24) (p = 0.7563) b |
108 (78.26) | 50 (69.44) p = 0.16002 a |
| Age (years) | 45.20 ± 15.69 | 46.61 ± 16.09 | 40.77 ± 13.52 p = 0.0856 a |
45.70 ± 9.70 (p = 0.8541) b |
36.52 ± 9.49 | 34.12 ± 9.97 p = 0.5231 a |
| Body mass index (kg/m2 ) | 36.92 ± 8.12 | 37.62 ± 7.75 | 34.67 ± 8.89 p = 0.3657 a |
36.87 ± 10.06 (p = 0.9452) b |
39.67 ± 10.08 | 37.46 ± 9.95 p = 0.4698 a |
|
Obesity grade 1
(BMI: 30–34.9 kg/m2) n (%) |
99 (27.96) | 97 (36.19) | 35 (41.67) | 57 (27.14) (p = 0.8876) b |
48 (35.04) | 31 (43.67) |
|
Obesity grade 2
(BMI: 35–39.9 kg/m2) n (%) |
105 (29.66) | 74 (27.61) | 16 (19.05) | 53 (25.24) (p = 0.0681) b |
26 (18.98) | 15 (21.13) |
|
Obesity grade 3
(BMI ≥ 40 kg/m2) n (%) |
150 (42.38) | 98 (36.20) | 34 (39.29) p = 0.08963 a |
100 (47.76) (p = 0.0741) b |
64 (45.99) | 26 (35.21) p = 0.0986 a |
| Duration of the obesity (years) | 17.67 ± 11.61 | 20.02 ± 11.99 | 18.40 ± 10.11 p = 0.3641 a |
17.00 ± 10.51 (p = 0.7561) b |
17.64 ± 11.62 | 16.02 ± 7.89 p = 0.6952 a |
| Vocational education: | ||||||
| Low level n (%) | 74 (20.90) | 64 (23.79) | 12 (14.29) | 47 (22.23) (p = 0.7863) b |
28 (20.58) | 18 (25.35) |
| Average level n (%) | 151 (42.66) | 120 (44.58) | 40 (47.62) | 86 (41.06) (p = 0.8213) b |
59 (42.65) | 27 (38.03) |
| High level n (%) | 129 (36.44) | 85 (31.63) | 33 (38.10) p = 0.05903 a |
77 (36.71) (p = 0.1245) b |
51 (36.76) | 27 (36.62) p = 0.41128 a |
| Self-assessed financial status: | ||||||
| Good n (%) | 208 (58.76) | 146 (54.27) | 62 (72.94) | 72 (34.28) (p < 0.0001) b |
45 (32.61) | 27 (37.50) |
| Average n (%) | 119 (33.62) | 99 (36.80) | 20 (23.53) | 91 (43.33) (p < 0.0001) b |
63 (45.65) | 28 (38.89) |
| Bad n (%) | 27 (7.63) | 24 (8.93) | 3 (3.53) p = 0.03560 a |
47 (22.38) (p < 0.0001) b |
30 (21.74) | 17 (23.61) p = 0.32036 a |
| Comorbidities: | ||||||
| Type 2 diabetes mellitus n (%) | 75 (21.06) | 69 (25.65) | 14 (16.47) p = 0.16057 a |
60 (28.57) (p < 0.0001) b |
46 (33.33) | 20 (27.77) p = 0.60321 a |
| Hypertension n (%) | 160 (45.48) | 159 (59.11) | 33 (38.82) p = 0.00107a |
99 (47.61) (p = 0.1253) b |
67 (48.55) | 36 (50.00) p = 0.0869 a |
| Dyslipidemia n (%) | 63 (17.79) | 109 (40.52) | 22 (25.88) p = 0.01483 a |
40 (19.04) (p = 0.1478) b |
24 (17.39) | 15 (20.83) p = 0.0352 a |
| Hyperuricemia n (%) | 14 (3.95) | 21 (7.81) | 2 (2.35) p = 0.07535 a |
12 (5.71) (p = 0.0635) b |
60 (4.34) | 4 (5.55) p = 0.5698 a |
| Coronary heart disease n (%) | 88 (24.85) | 37 (13.75) | 7 (8.24) p = 0.17878 a |
52 (24.76) (p = 0.8652) b |
38 (27.53) | 16 (22.22) p = 0.07891 a |
Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation unless otherwise indicated. NS—no significance. Significance for p < 0.05. a (p value not in brackets)—a comparison between procedures: conservative versus surgical treatment. b (p value in brackets)—a comparison between countries: Germany versus Poland.