ArticleObesity surgery2026
Comparison of 12-Month Outcome of Single Anastomosis Sleeve Jejunal Bypass Compared to Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass and Sleeve Gastrectomy: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis.
Article in Obesity surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSingle-anastomosis sleeve jejunal bypass (SASJ) is a recently introduced bariatric procedure combining restrictive and malabsorptive components. Comparative evidence evaluating SASJ against established bariatric procedures remains limited.
methodsIn this retrospective cohort study, adult patients undergoing SASJ, sleeve gastrectomy (SG), or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) between 2019 and 2024 were identified. Propensity score matching (1:1) was performed based on age, sex, and preoperative body mass index between SASJ and RYGB, and between SASJ and SG. Anthropometric and biochemical parameters were evaluated at baseline and 12 months postoperatively. Weight-loss outcomes included percentage of total weight loss (%TWL) and percentage of excess weight loss (%EWL).
resultsAfter matching, 40 patients were included in the SASJ-RYGB comparison and 26 in the SASJ-SG comparison. At 12 months, all procedures were associated with significant reductions in weight and body mass index (p < 0.001 for all). %TWL was comparable between SASJ and RYGB (35.7 ± 10.2% vs. 32.1 ± 8.4%, p = 0.09) and between SASJ and SG (34.4 ± 10.8% vs. 33.7 ± 6.5%, p = 0.4). %EWL was significantly higher following SASJ than RYGB (76.3 ± 21.6% vs. 66.8 ± 15.8%, p = 0.009), whereas no difference was observed between SASJ and SG. Fasting blood sugar improved after all procedures, with a greater reduction following RYGB (p = 0.033 vs. SASJ). SASJ demonstrated significant improvements in lipid parameters, including reductions in low-density lipoprotein and triglycerides.
conclusionsSASJ achieves substantial weight loss and meaningful metabolic improvement at one year, with outcomes comparable to SG and RYGB. These findings suggest that SASJ may represent a promising bariatric option for severe obesity; however, larger studies with longer follow-up and comprehensive safety assessment are required before definitive conclusions can be drawn.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42481892What 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.