15-year experience of laparoscopic single anastomosis (mini-)gastric bypass: comparison with other bariatric procedures

Alkhalifah, Nawaf; Lee, Wei-Jei; Hai, Tan; Ser, Kong-Han; Chen, Jung-Chien; Wu, Chun-Chi

doi:10.1007/s00464-017-6011-1

Cited by 61 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Generally, weight loss with OAGB seems to be better than that seen with either RYGB or SG [2,[5][6] but the difference in weight loss between OAGB and RYGB is small and perhaps clinically not meaningful. It should also be noted that marginally superior weight loss seen with OAGB in comparison with RYGB [7] might be due to higher rates of malnutrition [8][9] seen with it and that if surgeons used the recommended safe Bilio-Pancreatic Limb (BPL) length of 150 cm for OAGB [8,10], the superiority in weight loss might disappear or become clinically irrelevant.…”

Section: Comparative Efficacy Of Procedures For Weight Lossmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…A recent study [26] found that at 5-year follow up SG was associated with a significantly lower rate of re-intervention compared to RYGB. Alkhalifah et al [6] found the revision rate to be lower (4.0%) with OAGB in comparison to RYGB (5.1%) or SG (5.2%). It is also worth noting here that a number of these revisions in this study, where authors used a tailored algorithm for BPL based on patients' BMI, were for malnutrition.…”

Section: Comparative Efficacy Of Procedures For Weight Lossmentioning

confidence: 97%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Procedure and patient selection in bariatric and metabolic surgery

Mahawar¹,

Parmar²,

Graham³

2019

Minerva Chir

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Sleeve Gastrectomy (SG), Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass (RYGB), and One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass (OAGB) are the commonest bariatric procedures performed worldwide. The purpose of this review was to analyse comparative data on these three procedures to aid patient and procedure selection for patients seeking Bariatric and Metabolic Surgery (BMS). Evidence Acquisition: We examined published English language scientific literature available on PubMed for data comparing SG, RYGB, and OAGB for various groups of patients. Evidence Synthesis: There are a number of variables that can influence patient and procedure selection for individuals seeking BMS. High-quality data comparing each of these procedures for every patient subgroup, for each possible outcome measure is lacking. It is, therefore, not currently possible to make strict recommendations regarding patient and procedure selection. At the same time, the multidisciplinary teams should understand that risks of surgery may simply be too high for some patients-such as those suffering from end-stage organ disease and those suffering from mega obesity (BMI ≥ 70 kg/m 2). Surgery should only be offered to such high-risk groups in dedicated centres with appropriate expertise. For other patients, surgeons should carefully consider the pros and cons of each procedure, their own experience, and patient preferences before deciding the most appropriate BMS procedure for them. Conclusion: This review examines various factors influencing patient and procedure selection in bariatric surgery. Authors feel it is currently not possible to make strict recommendations and surgeons should carefully discuss the pros and cons of bariatric surgery and that of various options available in their practice with the patients before making a final recommendation.

show abstract

Section: Comparative Efficacy Of Procedures For Weight Lossmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Comparative Efficacy Of Procedures For Weight Lossmentioning

confidence: 97%

Procedure and patient selection in bariatric and metabolic surgery

Mahawar¹,

Parmar²,

Graham³

2019

Minerva Chir

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Due to a lack of an isolated biliopancreatic limb in MGB-OAGB, surgeons have theorized that patients would be more likely to experience intractable bile reflux as well as marginal ulcers. The reported revision rate ranged from 2 to 5% in patients undergoing MGB-OAGB [9][10][11]. In this study, we aimed to conduct a comprehensive literature review on the indications, operative techniques, and outcomes of revisional surgery following MGB-OAGB.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Indications, Operative Techniques, and Outcomes for Revisional Operation Following Mini-Gastric Bypass-One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass: a Systematic Review

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In addition to being a relatively reversible and less complex operation, mini-gastric bypass-one anastomosis gastric bypass (MGB-OAGB) has demonstrated comparable weight loss and metabolic improvement rates with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). However, surgical strategies for managing its failures and late complications were poorly defined. This article aims to review the indications, operative techniques, and outcomes for revisional surgery following MGB-OAGB. A systematic review was performed using the PubMed database from 1997 to 2019. Of 179 included patients, 89 underwent revision to RYGB; 52 to sleeve gastrectomy (SG); 32 reversal to original anatomy; and 6 underwent partial revision with gastro-gastrostomy alone. Most common indications were severe malnutrition, chronic bile reflux, intractable marginal ulcerations, and insufficient weight loss. Postoperative complication rates ranged from 5 to 35%.

show abstract

“…[ 2 3 ] It has many potential advantages such as technical ease, shorter operative time, lower complication rates, simpler revision and reversal, and lower incidence of internal herniation over Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), the longest serving bariatric procedure. [ 4 5 6 7 ]…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Regardless of these advantages, about 4% patients need revisional/reversal surgeries in the long-term after OAGB[ 5 ] due to protein-calorie malnutrition and/or excessive weight loss, persistent gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD),[ 8 ] persistent marginal ulcer (MU), inadequate weight loss, or weight regain. Revisions for complications have been reported in about 1%–2% patients for GERD,[ 9 10 11 ] 0%–2% for MUs,[ 6 12 ] 0%–1.01% for severe malnutrition, and about 0.5% for incomplete weight loss and weight regain.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Revisional surgery after one anastomosis/mini gastric bypass: A narrative review

Kermansaravi¹,

Mahawar²,

Jazi³

et al. 2020

J Res Med Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB)/mini gastric bypass is now considered to be a safe and efficient method for morbidly obese patients but has complications and adverse events such as other surgical procedures. The present paper outlines the need for and the nature of revisional surgery in the long-term following OAGB in accordance with the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis guidelines. A literature search was carried out in PubMed. All articles on OAGB for which the authors described a patient needing revisional surgery in the long term after OAGB were examined.

show abstract

15-year experience of laparoscopic single anastomosis (mini-)gastric bypass: comparison with other bariatric procedures

Abstract: LSAGB is an effective procedure for treating morbid obesity and metabolic disorders, which results in sustained weight loss and a high resolution of comorbidities.

Cited by 61 publications

References 28 publications

Procedure and patient selection in bariatric and metabolic surgery

Procedure and patient selection in bariatric and metabolic surgery

Indications, Operative Techniques, and Outcomes for Revisional Operation Following Mini-Gastric Bypass-One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass: a Systematic Review

Revisional surgery after one anastomosis/mini gastric bypass: A narrative review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About