Sleeve gastrectomy with one anastomosis bipartition versus one anastomosis gastric bypass: A pilot study

被引:1
|
作者
Qin, Xiaoguang [1 ,2 ]
Mao, Zhongqi [1 ,2 ,4 ]
Lee, Wei-Jei [1 ,3 ]
Zhang, Min [1 ,2 ]
Chen, Shu-Chun [3 ]
Chen, Jung-Chien [3 ]
Wu, Guoqiang [1 ,2 ]
Zhou, Xiaoqing [1 ]
Wei, Tiantian [1 ]
Huang, Yan [1 ]
机构
[1] Nanjing Med Univ, Affiliated BenQ Hosp, Bariatr Med Ctr, Suzhou BenQ Med Ctr,Dept Metab, Suzhou, Jiangsu, Peoples R China
[2] Soochow Univ, Affiliated Hosp 1, Dept Gen Surg, Suzhou, Peoples R China
[3] China Med Univ, Hsinchu Hosp, Med Weight Loss Ctr, Dept Gen Surg, Taichung, Taiwan
[4] Soochow Univ, Affiliated Hosp 1, Dept Gen Surg, 899 Ping Hai Rd, Suzhou, Peoples R China
关键词
metabolic surgery; one-anastomosis gastric bypass; SG plus one anastomosis bipartition; OBESE-PATIENTS; EXPERIENCE; PLICATION; EFFICACY;
D O I
10.1111/ases.13258
中图分类号
R826.8 [整形外科学]; R782.2 [口腔颌面部整形外科学]; R726.2 [小儿整形外科学]; R62 [整形外科学(修复外科学)];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: One anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) is a new recognized metabolic surgery, but the problem that we cannot screen the excluded stomach is a troubling issue in China. The emergence of sleeve gastrectomy plus one anastomosis bipartition (SG + OAB) makes us see a hope to solve this problem.Objectives: By comparing the efficacy of the two surgical methods, to evaluate whether SG + OAB surgery can solve the dilemma faced by OAGB that the excluded stomach cannot be screened.Methods: A retrospective study to compare the patients who underwent OAGB and SG + OAB was conducted. The main outcome measures were (1) operation risk, (2) weight loss, and (3) diabetes remission at 6 months.Results: This study was conducted in the bariatric/metabolic surgical center. From November 2021 to February 2022, a total of 30 patients with obesity who received SG + OAB surgery were recruited. Another matched 60 patients undergoing OAGB were recruited as control group. There was no difference in preoperative age (32.15 +/- 9.02 vs. 34.47 +/- 7.22; p = .224), female ratio (83% vs. 85%; p = .837), and BMI (36.18 +/- 5.30 vs. 34.68 +/- 5.58; p = .217) between the two groups. OAGB had a shorter mean operation time (121.67 +/- 20.41 vs. 143.50 +/- 25.07 min; p < .001) and a lower intraoperative blood loss (21.92 +/- 12.35 vs. 32.43 +/- 22.01 mL; p = .005), but a longer postoperative flatus passage (2.13 +/- 0.43 vs. 1.87 +/- 0.43 days; p = .007) compared with the SG + OAB group. Two patients (6.7%) developed major surgical complication in SG + OAB group but no major complication developed in OAGB group. At 6 months after surgery, SG + OAB had a higher %total weight loss than OAGB (31.05 +/- 3.12 vs. 28.14 +/- 5.43%; p = .015), but diabetes remission rate was similarly high in both groups.Conclusions: SG + OAB operation had a non-inferior or even better weight loss than OAGB, with a similar glycemic control efficacy. However, the high complication rate of SG + OAB is the major drawback that needs attention.
引用
收藏
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Nutritional Outcomes One Year after One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass Compared to Sleeve Gastrectomy
    Shirazi, Naama
    Beglaibter, Nahum
    Grinbaum, Ronit
    Abu Ahmad, Wiessam
    Aronis, Anna
    NUTRIENTS, 2022, 14 (13)
  • [22] A Long-Term Comparative Study Between One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass and Sleeve Gastrectomy
    Andreas Plamper
    Philipp Lingohr
    Jennifer Nadal
    Jonel Trebicka
    Maximilian J. Brol
    Anna Woestemeier
    Sophia M.-T. Schmitz
    Patrick H. Alizai
    Ulf P. Neumann
    Tom F. Ulmer
    Karl P. Rheinwalt
    Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery, 2023, 27 : 47 - 55
  • [23] One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass Versus Sleeve Gastrectomy for Obesity: a Systemic Review and Meta-analysis
    Ali, Muhammad
    Wang, Yang
    Ji, Jin
    Wang, Wei
    Wang, Daorong
    JOURNAL OF GASTROINTESTINAL SURGERY, 2023, 27 (10) : 2226 - 2244
  • [24] A Long-Term Comparative Study Between One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass and Sleeve Gastrectomy
    Plamper, Andreas
    Lingohr, Philipp
    Nadal, Jennifer
    Trebicka, Jonel
    Brol, Maximilian J.
    Woestemeier, Anna
    Schmitz, Sophia M-T
    Alizai, Patrick H.
    Neumann, Ulf P.
    Ulmer, Tom F.
    Rheinwalt, Karl P.
    JOURNAL OF GASTROINTESTINAL SURGERY, 2023, 27 (01) : 47 - 55
  • [25] One-anastomosis gastric bypass versus sleeve gastrectomy for morbid obesity: a meta-analysis
    Magouliotis, Dimitrios
    Tasiopoulou, Vasiliki
    Svokos, Alexis
    Svokos, Konstantina
    Tzovaras, George
    Zacharoulis, Dimitris
    OBESITY SURGERY, 2018, 28 : S22 - S23
  • [26] One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass Versus Sleeve Gastrectomy for Obesity: a Systemic Review and Meta-analysis
    Muhammad Ali
    Yang Wang
    Jin Ji
    Wei Wang
    Daorong Wang
    Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery, 2023, 27 : 2226 - 2244
  • [27] Sleeve gastrectomy plus single anastomosis sleeve ileal bipartition versus sleeve gastrectomy alone: The role of bipartition
    Qin, Xiaoguang
    Mao, Zhongqi
    Lee, Wei-Jei
    Zhang, Min
    Wu, Guoqiang
    Zhou, Xiaoqing
    ASIAN JOURNAL OF ENDOSCOPIC SURGERY, 2025, 18 (01)
  • [28] Laparoscopic One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass Versus Laparoscopic One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass with Braun Anastomosis: What's Better?
    Olmi, Stefano
    Oldani, Alberto
    Cesana, Giovanni
    Ciccarese, Francesca
    Uccelli, Matteo
    De Carli, Stefano Maria
    Villa, Roberta
    David, Giulia
    Giorgi, Riccardo
    Zanoni, Adelinda Angela Giulia
    JOURNAL OF LAPAROENDOSCOPIC & ADVANCED SURGICAL TECHNIQUES, 2019, 29 (11): : 1469 - 1474
  • [29] Analysis of the efficacy of sleeve gastrectomy, one-anastomosis gastric bypass, and single-anastomosis sleeve ileal bypass in the treatment of metabolic syndrome
    Yu, Hang
    Qian, Lulu
    Yan, Yu
    Yang, Qi
    Shan, Xiaodong
    Chen, Youwei
    Fu, Xiao
    Chu, Xuehui
    Kang, Xing
    Sun, Xitai
    SCIENTIFIC REPORTS, 2024, 14 (01)
  • [30] Laparoscopic one anastomosis gastric bypass: A revisional procedure for failed laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy
    Elmahdy, Tamer M.
    Elsherpiny, Waleed Y.
    Barakat, Hossam B.
    SURGICAL PRACTICE, 2022, 26 (02) : 101 - 107