Clinical outcomes after one anastomosis gastric bypass versus sleeve gastrectomy in super-super-obese patients

American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery position statement on one-anastomosis gastric bypass

The following position statement is issued by the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery in response to inquiries made to the society by patients, physicians, society members, hospitals, health insurance payors, and others regarding one-anastomosis gastric bypass as a treatment for obesity and metabolic disease. This statement is based on current clinical knowledge, expert opinion, and published peer-reviewed scientific evidence available at this time. The statement may be revised in the future as more information becomes available.

Outcomes of Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy (LSG) vs One-Anastomosis Gastric Bypass (OAGB) in Patients with Super-Super Obesity (BMI ≥ 60 kg/m2)

INTRODUCTION

The data comparing laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) and one-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) in patients with BMI ≥ 60 kg/m2 is scarce.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data of patients with BMI ≥ 60 kg/m2 undergoing LSG or OAGB from January 2008 until June 2022 was analyzed retrospectively. Weight loss outcomes, impact on comorbidities, and complications were compared in both groups.

RESULTS

Fifty-six patients underwent LSG and 13 patients underwent OAGB. The median age and BMI were 37 (34-44) years and 63 (61.3-64.6) kg/m2 respectively. Both the groups had similar baseline demographic parameters. The percentage excess BMI loss (%EBMIL) was statistically similar in LSG and OAGB groups at 1 year (46.2% vs 46.1%), 3 years (52.9% vs 56.7%), and 5 years (51.1% vs 62.3%). The percentage excess BMI regain was lower (although statistically similar) following OAGB at 3 years (5.3% vs 0.1%) and 5 years (12.9% vs 4.4%). OAGB was found to correlate positively with weight loss and negatively with weight regain (p > 0.05). There was one 30-day mortality due to postoperative lower respiratory infection in the LSG group.

CONCLUSION

OAGB has a trend towards better weight loss outcomes as compared to LSG in patients with a BMI ≥ 60 kg/m2 with lesser complication rates and might be a preferred option. LSG also has acceptable weight loss and should be considered a standalone procedure if OAGB is not feasible technically.

Super super obesity with a BMI of 98 kg/m2: a case report

Standards of care in regards to super-super obese patients are yet to be evolving due to the sparsity of this weight category along with the high morbidity and mortality rates attributed to it. We report a successful case of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy for a 35 years old lady with a body mass index (BMI) of 98 kg/m2.

Does One-Anastomosis Gastric Bypass Expose Patients to Gastroesophageal Reflux: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the incidence of new-onset gastroesophageal reflux, reflux change, esophagitis, Barrett's esophagus, and revision due to reflux, gastritis, and marginal ulcer after one-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB). We performed subgroup analyses based on primary and revisional OAGB and time of follow-up. Meta-analysis of 87 studies with 27,775 patients showed a 6% rate of new-onset reflux after OAGB. Preoperative reflux status did not change significantly after OAGB. The rate of esophagitis and Barrett's esophagus was 15% and 1%, respectively. The new-onset reflux rate after OAGB was significantly higher than gastric bypass but not different with sleeve gastrectomy. The current study showed a relatively low rate of reflux and its complications after OAGB, but it was significantly higher than Roux-en-Y gastric bypass.

One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass Versus Sleeve Gastrectomy for Obesity: a Systemic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

A long-lasting and efficient method of managing obesity and therapeutic associated comorbidities is bariatric surgery. However, a debated comparison between one-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) and sleeve gastrectomy is still essential (SG). The goal of this study is to evaluate outcomes using RCT and NRCT from 2015 to 2022.

METHODS

By contrasting the OAGB and SG for bariatric surgery from January 2015 to September 2022, an RCT and NRCT were prospectively gathered using the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and MEDLINE databases of published research. This meta-statistical analysis was carried out in RevMan 5.4, and the best effect model was selected based on heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Twelve retrospective studies describing 6344 patients (3725 OAGB and 2619 SG) satisfied the inclusion criteria. A statistically significant result was in %EWL first year (MD = 8.03, 95% CI: 4.54-11.52, P < 0.05), second year (MD = 8.94, 95% CI: 2.95-14.94, P < 0.05), third year (MD = 8.93, 95% CI: 5.75-12.10, P < 0.05), fourth year (MD = 15.09, 95% CI:0.87-29.31, P < 0.05), and fifth year (MD = 14.25, 95% CI: 5.34, P < 0.05). OAGB was associated with a lower rate of remission in dyslipidemia, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and hemorrhage. However, OAGB increased the incidence of GERD and leakage.

CONCLUSIONS

In terms of weight loss and comorbidity remission, OAGB is more effective than SG, although postoperative consequences are rather comparable between the two methods.

Marginal Ulcers Following One-Anastomosis Gastric Bypass: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Marginal ulcer (MU) is an uncommon but significant complication following one-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB). Our study aims to understand the incidence rates, risk factors, and management of MU following OAGB.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases were examined to identify all studies on OAGB where authors had reported on MU. Data were collected on basic demographics, incidence rates, risk factors, and management of this condition.

RESULTS

Thirty-two studies involving 8868 patients were analysed. The mean age and body mass index (BMI) of patients in these studies were 40.9 ± 4.5 years and 47.6 ± 5.6 kg/m2, respectively. Among the patient cohort, approximately 72% were female, and 20.6% had preoperative gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). The authors described prescribing proton-pump inhibitors (PPI) prophylaxis to 14.1% of patients after surgery. Two hundred twenty-eight patients were reported to have MU. The incidence of MU was 2.59% (95% CI 1.89-3.52), of which 53 patients presented within 12 months, 24 patients presented after 31 months, and five patients after 6 years. One hundred forty-six patients did not have presentation time documented. Sixty-five patients were described to have MU diagnosed on endoscopy, of which 54 were symptomatic and 11 were asymptomatic. The authors were, however, not specific on the choice of investigation for the remaining 163 patients. Of patients, 89.7% were treated conservatively with PPIs, whilst 10.3% had surgery to treat MU.

CONCLUSIONS

Marginal ulcer is an uncommon complication following OAGB. The majority of patients are treated conservatively with PPIs. Larger, well-designed studies reporting on risk factors, investigation, and management of MU following OAGB are warranted.

Does one-anastomosis gastric bypass provide better outcomes than sleeve gastrectomy in patients with BMI greater than 50? A systematic review and meta-analysis

In patients with BMI greater than 50, sleeve gastrectomy (SG) may not be adequate to treat obesity. To determine whether one-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) can provide better outcomes compared with SG in patients with BMI greater than 50, a systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted, including a total of nine retrospective studies with a total of 2332 participants. There was a significant difference in the percentage of excess weight loss [weighted mean difference (WMD): 8.52; 95% CI: 5.81-11.22; P<0.001) and percentage of total weight loss (WMD: 6.65; 95% CI: 5.05-8.24; P<0.001). No significant differences were seen in operative time (WMD: 1.91; 95% CI: -11.24 to 15.07; P=0.77) and length of stay in hospital (WMD: -0.41; 95% CI: -1.18 to 0.37; P=0.30) between the two groups. There were no significant differences between OAGB with SG in Clavien-Dindo grades I-III [odds ratio (OR): 1.56; 95% CI: 0.80-3.05], or grade IV complications (OR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.18-2.94). The meta-analysis on remission of type 2 diabetes indicated a comparable effect between SG and OAGB (OR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.28-2.16). The OAGB group had a significantly higher rate of remission of hypertension compared with the SG group (OR: 1.63; 95% CI: 1.06-2.50). The findings of this meta-analysis suggest that the OAGB accomplished a higher percentage of total weight loss and percentage of excess weight loss at short-term and mid-term follow-up but, there was no major difference between the OAGB and SG operations in terms of perioperative outcomes, complications, and diabetes remission.

A Long-Term Comparative Study Between One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass and Sleeve Gastrectomy

BACKGROUND

One anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) has become increasingly accepted in bariatric surgery and meanwhile represents the third most common procedure worldwide. While it shows promising weight loss results and comorbidity resolution, questions about issues such as reflux or nutritional deficiencies (ND) persist in the long term. On the other hand, the most frequently performed sleeve gastrectomy (SG) has to accept growing criticism regarding long-term results and reflux issues. There is a particular lack of long-term comparative data for both procedures. This study presents our long-term experience.

METHODS

We evaluated OAGB and SG patients retrospectively comparing for weight loss and resolution of comorbidities as well as perioperative and long-term complications in a follow-up period of 5 years.

RESULTS

Nine hundred eleven OAGB and 241 SG were included in the study. OAGB had a shorter operation time and hospital stay. Overall complication rate did not differ in both groups. Ulcers were more frequent in OAGB (7.7% vs. 1.7%, p = 0.001), whereas insufficient weight loss (IWL)/weight regain (WR) proved to be more prevalent in SG (25.7% vs. 6.4%, p < 0.001). The same held true for reflux (17.8% vs. 8.3%, p < .001). On the other hand, ND were more common in OAGB (20.0% vs. 12.0%, p = 0.005). Revisional surgery was more often indicated after SG. Analysis by linear mixed model showed that OAGB achieved a lower BMI/higher loss of BMI. Improvement of T2DM (94.6% vs. 85.2%, p = 0.008) and sleep apnea (88.8% vs. 78.8%, p = 0.01) was superior in OAGB.

CONCLUSIONS

OAGB had a superior effect on weight loss as well as improvement of T2DM and sleep apnea. Furthermore, long-term problems such as IWL/WR and reflux were more related to SG. On the other hand, a malabsorptive procedure such as OAGB showed a higher risk for ND. Our findings support the available data in the literature.

One anastomosis gastric bypass as a one-stage bariatric surgical procedure in patients with BMI ≥ 50 kg/m2

In patients with BMI ≥ 50 kg/m2, it is difficult to select an appropriate procedure that can lead to optimum results. This study aims to evaluate mid-term weight loss outcomes in patients with BMI ≥ 50 kg/m2 following one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) as a one-stage procedure. A prospective study was conducted on patients with BMI ≥ 50 kg/m2, aged 18 years and above who had undergone primary OAGB from January 2016 to February 2019 with at least two years follow-ups. A total of 197 patients with BMI ≥ 50 kg/m2 had underwent OAGB. The mean age was 38 years and the mean pre-operative BMI was 53.7 kg/m2. Mean EWL% were 63.7%, 67.8% and 66.2% at one, two and five years after OAGB respectively. The highest level of EWL% was 68.4%, which was achieved in the 18th month following OAGB. OAGB can be performed safely in patients with BMI ≥ 50 kg/m2 as a one-stage procedure with acceptable weight loss outcomes and remission of obesity associated medical problems.