ArticleUpdates in surgery2024
Revisional one-anastomosis gastric bypass for failed laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy.
Article in Updates in surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- OAGB 2025. A systematic review with meta-analysis of indications and results for primary procedures at 5+ years.Updates in surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Laparoscopic Reversal of One-Anastomosis Gastric Bypass After Sleeve Gastrectomy: A Case Report.The American journal of case reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The study aimed to evaluate the mid-term weight loss outcomes and complications of revisional one-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) following failed laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). A total of 586 patients underwent LSG from January 2010 to February 2018. Revisional OAGB (rOAGB) was performed in 22 (3.8%) patients. A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from 20 patients with at least 12 months of follow-up after the revisional OAGB was carried out. The indications for revisional surgery were as follows: insufficient weight loss-4 (20%), weight regain-13 (65%), weight regain and symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD)-2 (10%), and dysphagia with gastroesophageal reflux-1 (5%). The mean interval between the LSG and rOAGB was 35.3 ± 15.4 months (range 4-64). The mean follow-up time after rOAGB was 45.5 ± 17.1 months (range 12-54). At the end of the follow-up after rOAGB, %TWL was 26.4 ± 8.9%, and %EWL was 58.5 ± 21.6%, based on pre-LSG body weight. In all three patients with intractable GERD, the clinical symptoms of reflux retreated after revisional OAGB. The overall complication rate was 20%. In conclusion, the main indications for revision after LSG are weight regain, insufficient weight loss, and intractable GERD. Revisional OAGB emerges as a viable surgical alternative for unsuccessful LSG, presenting notable weight loss outcomes; however, it may be linked to an increased incidence of complications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.