Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30542828›Full record

ArticleObesity surgery2019

Mini/One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass Versus Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass as a Second Step Procedure After Sleeve Gastrectomy-a Retrospective Cohort Study.

Sonja Chiappetta, Christine Stier, Oliver Scheffel, Simone Squillante, Rudolf A Weiner

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Obesity surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05608772 (Conversion of Failed Sleeve Gastrectomy Due to Weight Regain to SADI-S, RYGB or OAGB), which is not on this map. Cited by 42 papers, 15 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 15 pooled it
6.6field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT05608772 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

Conversion of Failed Sleeve Gastrectomy Due to Weight Regain to SADI-S, RYGB or OAGB

TypeinterventionalSponsorGeneral Committee of Teaching Hospitals and Institutes, EgyptRan2023 to 2028Enrolled234ConditionsWeight Loss, Bariatric Surgery Candidate, Comorbidities and Coexisting Conditions, Nutrient DeficiencyArmsrevision surgery
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

42 citing papers in PubMed, 15 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 82 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sonja ChiappettaDepartment of Obesity and Metabolic Surgery, Sana Klinikum Offenbach, 63069, Offenbach am Main, Germany. sonja1002@gmx.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1964-416X
Christine StierAdipositaszentrum, University Hospital of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany.
Oliver ScheffelDepartment of Obesity and Metabolic Surgery, Sana Klinikum Offenbach, 63069, Offenbach am Main, Germany.
Simone SquillanteDepartment of General Surgery, Ospedale del Mare, Naples, Italy.
Rudolf A WeinerDepartment of Obesity and Metabolic Surgery, Sana Klinikum Offenbach, 63069, Offenbach am Main, Germany.
Sana Klinikum Offenbach · DEUniversitätsklinikum Würzburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhether one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) is a better revisional bariatric surgery (RBS) after sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is still under debate. The aim is to compare short-term outcomes of RYGB and OAGB as a RBS after SG, pertaining to their effects on weight loss, resolution of comorbidities, and complications.

methodsWe performed a single-center analysis of 55 patients (n = 34 OAGB, n = 21 RYGB). Indications for revisional surgery included weight regain/loss failure (67%) and intractable gastroesophageal reflux disease (33%). Data were collected up to 1-year follow-up (FU) and included time of revisional surgery, operation time, weight, body mass index, excess weight loss, and total weight loss (TWL), both in percent, complications and resolution of comorbidities.

resultsOperation time was 79 ± 36 (OAGB-MGB) and 98 ± 24 min (RYGB) (p = 0.03). In the first 30 postoperative days, three patients in the RYGB group, and no patient in the OAGB group, had postoperative complications. FU was 100%. Minor complication rates at 12 months were 33.3% (RYGB) and 35.3% (OAGB). At 12 months, mean % TWL was 10.3 ± 7.6% (RYGB) and 15.8 ± 7.8% (OAGB) (p = 0.0132).

conclusionsOAGB after failed SG was found to be a quicker procedure with less perioperative complications. At 1-year FU, no significant differences were seen between RYGB and OAGB regarding readmission and minor complications. Still long-term FU including the risk of malnutrition is needed to have a complete evaluation of OAGB as a RBS for the future.

Indexed as

GastrectomyReoperationGastroesophageal RefluxHumansObesity, MorbidOperative TimePostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective StudiesOAGB-MGBRevisional surgeryRYGBSG

Identifiers

PMID30542828
OpenAlexW2904895407

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.