Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36693919›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2023

Esophageal function and non-acid reflux evaluated by impedance-24 h-pH-metry, high-resolution manometry, and gastroscopy after one-anastomosis gastric bypass-outcomes of a prospective mid-term study.

D M Felsenreich, M L Zach, N Vock, J Jedamzik, J Eichelter, M Mairinger, L Gensthaler, L Nixdorf, P Richwien, C Bichler and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. 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

13 authors.

D M FelsenreichDivision of Visceral Surgery, Department of General Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, Vienna, 1090, Austria.
M L ZachDivision of Visceral Surgery, Department of General Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, Vienna, 1090, Austria.
N VockDivision of Visceral Surgery, Department of General Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, Vienna, 1090, Austria.
J JedamzikDivision of Visceral Surgery, Department of General Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, Vienna, 1090, Austria.
J EichelterDivision of Visceral Surgery, Department of General Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, Vienna, 1090, Austria.
M MairingerDivision of Visceral Surgery, Department of General Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, Vienna, 1090, Austria.
L GensthalerDivision of Visceral Surgery, Department of General Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, Vienna, 1090, Austria.
L NixdorfDivision of Visceral Surgery, Department of General Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, Vienna, 1090, Austria.
P RichwienDivision of Visceral Surgery, Department of General Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, Vienna, 1090, Austria.
C BichlerDivision of Visceral Surgery, Department of General Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, Vienna, 1090, Austria.
I KristoDivision of Visceral Surgery, Department of General Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, Vienna, 1090, Austria.
F B LangerDivision of Visceral Surgery, Department of General Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, Vienna, 1090, Austria.
G PragerDivision of Visceral Surgery, Department of General Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, Vienna, 1090, Austria. gerhard.prager@meduniwien.ac.at.ORCID 0000-0003-0257-4844

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOne-Anastomosis Gastric Bypass (OAGB) is the third most common bariatric operation for patients with obesity worldwide. One concern about OAGB is the presence of acid and non-acid reflux in a mid- and long-term follow-up. The aim of this study was to objectively evaluate reflux and esophagus motility by comparing preoperative and postoperative mid-term outcomes.

settingCross-sectional study; University-hospital based.

methodsThis study includes primary OAGB patients (preoperative gastroscopy, high-resolution manometry (HRM), and impedance-24 h-pH-metry) operated at Medical University of Vienna before 31st December 2017. After a mean follow-up of 5.1 ± 2.3 years, these examinations were repeated. In addition, history of weight, remission of associated medical problems (AMP), and quality of life (QOL) were evaluated.

resultsA total of 21 patients were included in this study and went through all examinations. Preoperative weight was 124.4 ± 17.3 kg with a BMI of 44.7 ± 5.6 kg/m

conclusionThis study has shown decreased rates of acid reflux and increased non-acid reflux after a mid-term outcome of primary OAGB patients. Gastroscopy showed signs of chronic irritation of the gastrojejunostomy, pouch, and distal esophagus, even in asymptomatic patients. Follow-up gastroscopies in OAGB patients after 5 years may be considered.

Indexed as

Gastric BypassGastroesophageal RefluxObesity, MorbidCross-Sectional StudiesElectric ImpedanceGastroscopyHumansHydrogen-Ion ConcentrationManometryProspective StudiesQuality of LifeGastroscopyHigh-resolution manometryImpedance-24 h-pH-metryNon-acid refluxOne-Anastomosis Gastric BypassQuality of life

Identifiers

PMID36693919
PMCPMC10156623

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.