One anastomosis gastric bypass versus Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a 30-day follow-up review

The safety profile of one-anastomosis gastric bypass compared to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program analysis

BACKGROUND

One anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) is an American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS)-endorsed bariatric surgery. As utilization of OAGB increases, it is important that the safety profile of OAGB be rigorously assessed.

OBJECTIVES

We studied the 30-day safety of OAGB compared to a similar gastro-jejunal anastomotic procedure, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB).

SETTING

Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) participating bariatric centers in the United States.

METHODS

A matched case-control study was conducted of patients who underwent primary gastric bypass surgery 2021-2022, identified in the MBSAQIP database. Each patient who underwent OAGB was matched to 4 controls who underwent RYGB on age (±10), sex, race, body mass index (BMI) (±5 kg/m2), preoperative functional status, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, and 13 comorbidities. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 1569 patients who underwent OAGB were matched to 6276 controls. Matched baseline characteristics were similar between groups. Operative time, length of stay (LOS), and overall complication rate were lower in the OAGB cohort (P < .001) with higher 30-day BMI loss percentage (P = .048). Specifically, OAGB was associated with a significantly lower bowel obstruction rate, as compared to RYGB (.1% versus 1.0%, P < .001). On logistic regression adjusting for all variables used in matching, OAGB was associated with a 27% decrease in overall complication rate (odds ratio [OR] .73, 95% confidence interval [CI] .62-.87, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Although OAGB is minimally utilized, the 30-day safety profile appears favorable. As compared to RYGB, OAGB was associated with shorter operative time and LOS, and a lower complication rate, partially due to minimization of small bowel obstructions with a loop anatomy. Further evidence in the comparative long-term safety profile is still needed.

Outcomes of SADI and OAGB Compared to RYGB from the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Quality Improvement Program: The North American Experience

BACKGROUND

Rapid adoption of sleeve gastrectomy (SG) in the last decade aptly reflects the desire of patients and surgeons for alternatives to RYGB and DS. While SG provides good outcomes, other options that address specific patient needs are warranted. Recently approved by ASMBS, SADI, and OAGB have garnered increasing interest due to their single anastomosis technique.

METHODS

Using the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Quality Improvement Program database, we examined laparoscopic and robotic cases from 2018 to 2021 to understand the percentage of primary bariatric surgery cases that are SADI and OAGB. We used coarsened exact matching to match patients who underwent SADI or OAGB to patients who underwent Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). We examined outcomes of matched patients using logistic regression.

RESULTS

Of the 667,979 patients that underwent bariatric-metabolic surgery, 1326 (0.2%) underwent SADI, and 2541 (0.4%) underwent OAGB. SADI was not identified in the database until 2020. In 2020, there were 487 SADI procedures compared to 839 in 2021. From 2018 to 2021, OAGBs went from 149 to 940. Compared with RYGB, SADI was associated with higher rates of anastomotic or staple line leak (OR 2.21 (95% CI 1.08-4.53)) and sepsis (OR 3.62 (95% CI 1.62-8.12)). Compared with RYGB, OAGB was associated with lower rates of gastrointestinal bleeding (OR 0.29 (95% CI 0.12-0.71)) and bowel obstruction (OR 0.10 (95% CI 0.02-0.39)). Of note, there were no differences between these procedures and RYGB for 30-day mortality.

CONCLUSION

More SADIs and OAGBs are being performed. However, there were higher complication rates associated with the SADI procedure. Further studies will be needed to better understand the key drivers for these outcomes.

One anastomosis gastric bypass as a primary bariatric surgery: MBSAQIP database analysis of short-term safety and outcomes

BACKGROUND

One anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) is described as a simpler, potentially safe, and effective bariatric-metabolic procedure that has been recently endorsed by the American Society of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery.

OBJECTIVES

First, we aim to compare the 30-day outcomes between OAGB and other bypass procedures: Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and single anastomosis duodenoileal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy (SADI-S). Second, identify the odds between postoperative complications and each surgical procedure.

METHODS

Patients who underwent primary OAGB, RYGB, and SADI-S were identified using the MBSAQIP database of 2020 and 2021. An analysis of patient demographics and 30-day outcomes were compared between these three bypass procedures. In addition, a multilogistic regression for overall complications, blood transfusions, unplanned ICU admissions, readmission, reoperation, and anastomotic leak stratified by surgical procedure was performed.

RESULTS

1607 primary OAGBs were reported between 2020 and 2021. In terms of patient demographics, patients who underwent RYGB and SADI-S showed a higher incidence of comorbidities. On the other hand, OAGB had shorter length of stay (1.39 ± 1.10 days vs 1.62 ± 1.42 days and 1.90 ± 2.04 days) and operative times (98.79 ± 52.76 min vs 125.91 ± 57.76 min and 139.85 ± 59.20 min) than RYGB and SADI-S. Similarly, OAGB showed lower rates of overall complications (1.9% vs 4.5% and 6.4%), blood transfusions (0.4% vs 1.1% and 1.8%), unplanned ICU admission (0.3% vs 0.8% and 1.4%), readmission (2.4% vs 4.9% and 5.0%), and reoperation (1.2% vs 1.9% and 3.1%). A multilogistic regression analysis was performed, RYGB and SADI-S demonstrated higher odds of 30-day complications.

CONCLUSION

The incidence of primary OAGB has increased since its approval by ASMBS, from 0.05% reported between 2015 and 2019 to 0.78% between 2020 and 2021. OAGB had better 30-day outcomes and shorter operative times than RYGB and SADI-S and therefore, could be considered a viable alternative.

Comparison of Single Versus Double Anastomosis Bariatric Metabolic Surgery in Obesity: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Major BMS are modified through loop rather than Roux-en-Y type reconstruction recently, and this study systematically reviews the BMS from the perspective of SA (single anastomosis) and DA (double anastomosis) procedures, aiming to research the differences among bariatric procedures. A total of 39 studies compared SA- and DA-BMS were finally eligible for analysis after searching in PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. Compared with DA, SA shortens operative time and decreases complications especially obstruction, internal hernia, and reoperation. SA-GB (gastric bypass) has significantly higher %TWL and T2DM remission rate than DA-GB 1- and 5-year postoperatively. SA-DS (duodenal switch) has similar 1-year %TWL and lower 5-year %TWL, and comparable 1- and 5-year T2DM remission with DA-DS. SA provides significant advantages about simplicity and safety. This, together with the shorter learning curve, makes SA a promising choice.

One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass in 6722 Patients: Early Outcomes from a Private Hospital Registry

BACKGROUND

One-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) is an emerging metabolic bariatric surgery (MBS) type used in both primary OAGB (pOAGB) and revisional OAGB (rOAGB). We studied ≤30-day outcomes of pOAGB and rOAGB and identified predictors of early complications.

METHODS

Electronic medical records of all OAGBs performed between January 2017 and December 2021 at a high-volume bariatric clinic in Israel comprising four hospital centers were scanned retrospectively using specialized data software (MDClone software, version 6.1). Data gathered were patients' characteristics, surgical procedure, and ≤30-day complications with Clavien-Dindo Classification (CDC). Multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to identify factors related to early complications of pOAGB and rOAGB.

RESULTS

A total of 6722 patients underwent a pOAGB (n = 5088, 75.7%) or rOAGB (n = 1634, 24.3%) procedure at our institution. Preoperative mean age and body mass index (BMI) were 40.6 ± 11.5 years and 41.2 ± 4.6 kg/m2, respectively. Early complications occurred in 258 (3.8%) patients (176 pOAGB and 82 rOAGB) and included mainly bleeding (n = 133, 2.0%), leaks (n = 31, 0.5%), and obstruction/strictures (n = 19, 0.3%). CDC complications for grades 1-2 and grades 3a--5 were 1.5% and 1.6%, respectively. The overall mortality rate was 0.03% (n = 2). Age, operative time ≥3 h, and any additional concomitant procedure were independent predictors of early complications following pOAGB, while a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus and operative time ≥3 h were independent predictors of early complications following rOAGB.

CONCLUSIONS

OAGB was found to be a safe primary and revisional MBS procedure in the ≤30-postoperative day term. The most common complications were gastrointestinal bleeding, leaks, and obstruction/stricture.

Remission of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) after Sleeve Gastrectomy (SG), One-Anastomosis Gastric Bypass (OAGB), and Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass (RYGB): A Systematic Review

Background and Objectives: The three most widely performed bariatric surgeries are Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), sleeve gastrectomy (SG), and one-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB). Aside from the benefits of weight loss, current findings suggest that these procedures can also induce remission of T2DM (type 2 diabetes mellitus). There are limited data that directly compare these three procedures. This study aims to compare the short-term and long-term remission of T2DM after RYGB, SG, and OAGB. Materials and Methods: Three databases (Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane) were searched for randomised controlled trials, prospective studies, and retrospective studies that compared the effects of RYGB, SG, and OAGB on T2DM remission. Studies published between 2001 and 2022 were analysed. Only patients with T2DM and who had primary bariatric surgery were included. Results: After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, seven articles were included in the review. It was found that all three procedures had comparable T2DM remission. RYGB was noted to have the highest complication rate when compared to SG and OAGB. Importantly, it was noted that other predictive factors such as age, duration of diabetes, baseline HbA1c, BMI, and use of antidiabetic medication play a crucial role in T2DM remission. Conclusions: This systematic literature review confirms the existing data that all three bariatric surgeries induce remission of T2DM. Increasing in popularity, OAGB had comparable outcomes to RYGB and SG in inducing T2DM remission. In addition to the choice of bariatric surgery, there are other independent predictive factors that have an impact on T2DM remission. Further studies with larger sample sizes, longer follow-up periods, and studies that control confounding factors are required in this field.

Management of leaks following one-anastomosis gastric bypass: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of 44 318 patients

INTRODUCTION

One-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) complication, such as leakage, can be dangerous and should be managed properly, yet little data exist in the literature regarding the management of leaks after OAGB, and there are no guidelines to date.

METHODS

The authors performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature and 46 studies, examining 44 318 patients were included.

RESULTS

There were 410 leaks reported in 44 318 patients of OAGB published in the literature, which represents a prevalence of 1% of leaks after OAGB. The surgical strategy was very variable among all the different studies; 62.1% of patients with leaks had to undergo another surgery due to the leak. The most commonly performed procedure was peritoneal washout and drainage (with or without T-tube placement) in 30.8% of patients, followed by conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass in 9.6% of patients. Medical treatment with antibiotics, with or without total parenteral nutrition alone, was conducted in 13.6% of patients. Among the patients with the leak, the mortality rate related to the leak was 1.95%, and the mortality due to the leak in the population of OAGB was 0.02%.

CONCLUSION

The management of leaks following OAGB requires a multidisciplinary approach. OAGB is a safe operation with a low leak risk rate, and the leaks can be managed successfully if detected in a timely fashion.

Standardization of the One-anastomosis Gastric Bypass Procedure for Morbid Obesity: Technical Aspects and Early Outcomes

BACKGROUND

One-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) has become an accepted metabolic/bariatric surgery procedure. This study aimed to describe our center's standardized OAGB operative technique and report early (≤30 d) safety outcomes in patients with severe obesity.

METHODS

The medical records of patients who had undergone either primary (n=681, 88.0%) or revisional OAGB (n=93, 12.0%) were retrospectively evaluated. Patient demographics, operative time, length of hospital stay, readmissions, reoperations, and ≤30-day morbidity and mortality rates were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 774 consecutive patients with severe obesity (647 female, 83.6%) underwent OAGB between January 2016 and December 2021. Their mean age was 36.2±10.8 years (range: 18 to 70 y) and mean body mass index was 42.7±4.2 kg/m 2 (range: 17.2 to 61 kg/m 2 ). Mean operating time was 52.6±19.9 minutes (range: 25 to 295 min) and length of hospital stay was 1.6±0.9 days (range: 1 to 9 d). Early postoperative complications occurred in 16 cases (2.1%), including 2 leaks with an intra-abdominal abscess (0.3%), bleeding (n=3, 0.4%), acute kidney failure (n=1, 0.15%), urinary tract infection (n=2, 0.3%), and intensive care unit stay (n=4, 0.5%). Seventy patients (9.1%) were readmitted, and re-laparoscopy was performed in 1 patient (0.1%). There was no mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

In the very early term, OAGB was a safe primary and revisional metabolic/bariatric surgery operation. Consistent performance of a standardized OAGB procedure contributed to low rates of morbidity and mortality in the hands of metabolic/bariatric surgeons with good laparoscopic skills at a high-volume center.

Comparing Patient Selection and 30-day Outcomes Between Single Anastomosis Gastric Bypass and Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass: a Retrospective Cohort Study of 47,384 Patients

PURPOSE

Single anastomosis gastric bypass (SAGB) offers a novel bariatric procedure with increasing popularity. However, its adoption, patient selection, and short-term safety remain poorly characterized.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The 2020 Metabolic and Bariatric Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) was analyzed comparing SAGB to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). Bivariate analysis and multivariable logistic regression models compared difference between groups and factors associated with 30-day serious complications and mortality.

RESULTS

Overall, 47,384 patients were evaluated, with 1344 (2.8%) undergoing SAGB. SAGB patients had a higher BMI (45.2 ± 7.6 kg/m² vs 44.6 ± 7.9 kg/m², p = 0.006) and younger age (44.3 ± 12.1 years vs. 45.4 ± 11.5 years, p = 0.0008) than RYGB patients respectively. SAGB patients were less likely to have GERD (42.6% SAGB vs. 45.7% RYGB, p = 0.02), sleep apnea (37.8% SAGB vs. 41.1% RYGB, p = 0.02), and chronic steroid use (1.3% SAGB vs. 2.2% RYGB, p = 0.04). There were no significant difference in diabetes, hypertension, or dyslipidemia rates. Operative length for SAGB was significantly less than for RYGB (101 ± 53.7 min SAGB vs. 131.5 ± 63.3 min RYGB, p < 0.0001). SAGB was independently associated with decreased serious complications (4.7% vs. 8.4%, p < 0.0001) within 30 days compared to RYGB. Additionally, SAGB patients were less likely to experience reoperation (1.6% vs. 2.6%, p = 0.03), and readmission (2.2 vs. 5.8%, p < 0.0001) compared to RYGB respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to RYGB, patients undergoing SAGB were younger with marginally higher BMI. After adjusting for comorbidities, SAGB was associated with decreased odds of serious complications. Ongoing prospective studies analyzing long-term outcomes following SAGB remain needed.

30-day morbidity and mortality of sleeve gastrectomy, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and one anastomosis gastric bypass: a propensity score-matched analysis of the GENEVA data

BACKGROUND

There is a paucity of data comparing 30-day morbidity and mortality of sleeve gastrectomy (SG), Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), and one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB). This study aimed to compare the 30-day safety of SG, RYGB, and OAGB in propensity score-matched cohorts.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This analysis utilised data collected from the GENEVA study which was a multicentre observational cohort study of bariatric and metabolic surgery (BMS) in 185 centres across 42 countries between 01/05/2022 and 31/10/2020 during the Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. 30-day complications were categorised according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. Patients receiving SG, RYGB, or OAGB were propensity-matched according to baseline characteristics and 30-day complications were compared between groups.

RESULTS

In total, 6770 patients (SG 3983; OAGB 702; RYGB 2085) were included in this analysis. Prior to matching, RYGB was associated with highest 30-day complication rate (SG 5.8%; OAGB 7.5%; RYGB 8.0% (p = 0.006)). On multivariate regression modelling, Insulin-dependent type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypercholesterolaemia were associated with increased 30-day complications. Being a non-smoker was associated with reduced complication rates. When compared to SG as a reference category, RYGB, but not OAGB, was associated with an increased rate of 30-day complications. A total of 702 pairs of SG and OAGB were propensity score-matched. The complication rate in the SG group was 7.3% (n = 51) as compared to 7.5% (n = 53) in the OAGB group (p = 0.68). Similarly, 2085 pairs of SG and RYGB were propensity score-matched. The complication rate in the SG group was 6.1% (n = 127) as compared to 7.9% (n = 166) in the RYGB group (p = 0.09). And, 702 pairs of OAGB and RYGB were matched. The complication rate in both groups was the same at 7.5 % (n = 53; p = 0.07).

CONCLUSIONS

This global study found no significant difference in the 30-day morbidity and mortality of SG, RYGB, and OAGB in propensity score-matched cohorts.

Comparison of Short-term Safety of One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass to Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass and Sleeve Gastrectomy in the United States: 341 cases from MBSAQIP-accredited Centers

BACKGROUND

One anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) is the third most common (4%) primary bariatric procedure worldwide but is seldom performed in the United States and is currently under consideration for endorsement by the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery. Evidence from the United States on safety of OAGB compared to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is limited.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the short-term safety outcomes of the three primary bariatric procedures.

SETTING

Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP)-accredited hospitals in the United States and Canada.

METHODS

Using the 2015-2019 MBSAQIP database, we compared the safety outcomes of adult patients who underwent primary laparoscopic OAGB, RYGB, and SG. Exclusion criteria included age over 80 years, emergency operation, conversion, and incomplete follow-up. The primary outcome was 30-day overall complication. Secondary outcomes were 30-day surgical and medical complications and hospitalization length.

RESULTS

A total of 341 patients underwent primary OAGB. Using propensity scores, we matched the OAGB cohort 1:1 with two cohorts of similar baseline characteristics who underwent RYGB and SG, respectively. The OAGB cohort had a lower overall complication rate than the RYGB cohort (6.7% versus12.3%, P = .02) and a similar rate to the SG cohort (5.0%, P = .43). The OAGB cohort had a similar rate of surgical complication to the RYGB cohort (5.0% versus 8.5%, P = .1) and a higher rate than the SG group (1.2%, P = .009). The OAGB cohort had a shorter median hospitalization than the RYGB cohort (1 d [interquartile range (IQR) 1-2 d] versus 2 d [IQR 1-2 d], P < .001) and a similar hospitalization length to the SG cohort ([1-2 d], P = .46).

CONCLUSION

Using the largest and the most current U.S. data, this study demonstrated that the short-term safety profile of primary OAGB is acceptable, but future studies should determine the long-term safety.

The impact of ursodeoxycholic acid on gallstone disease after bariatric surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized control trials

BACKGROUND

Ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) is a bile acid that has been shown to reduce the formation of gallstones after significant weight loss.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the impact of UDCA on the incidence of gallstones after bariatric surgery.

SETTINGS

An electronic search of PubMed (Medline), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Studies (CENTRAL), Scopus (Elsevier) databases, EMBASE, CINAHL, Clinicaltrials.gov, and Web of Science.

METHODS

A meta-analysis of randomized control trials was performed. The primary outcome was the incidence of gallstones after bariatric surgery. Secondary outcomes included type of operation and time interval to and characteristics associated with gallstone formation.

RESULTS

Ten randomized control trials including 2583 patients were included, 1772 patients (68.6%) receiving UDCA and 811 (31.4%) receiving placebo. There was a significant reduction in gallstone formation in patients who received UDCA postoperatively (risk ratio [RR] .36, 95% confidence interval [CI] .22-.41, P  < .00001). The overall prevalence of gallstone formation was 24.7% in the control group compared to 7.3% in the UDCA group. A dose of ≤600 mg/day had a significantly reduced risk of gallstone formation compared to the placebo group (risk ratio .35; 95% CI .24-.53; P < .001). The risk reduction was not significant for the higher dose (>600 mg/day) group (risk ratio .30; 95% CI, .09-1.01, P = .05).

CONCLUSIONS

UDCA significantly reduces the risk of both asymptomatic and symptomatic gallstones after bariatric surgery. A dose of 600 mg/day is associated with improved compliance and better outcomes regardless of type of surgery. UDCA should be considered part of a standard postoperative care bundle after bariatric surgery.