Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Mar;29(3):819-827.
doi: 10.1007/s11695-018-03629-y.

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  1 , Christine Stier  2 , Oliver Scheffel  3 , Simone Squillante  4 , Rudolf A Weiner  3
Affiliations

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 et al. Obes Surg. 2019 Mar.

Abstract

Background: Whether 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.

Methods: We 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.

Results: Operation 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).

Conclusions: OAGB 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.

Keywords: OAGB-MGB; RYGB; Revisional surgery; SG.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Surg Endosc. 2013 Dec;27(12):4504-10 - PubMed
    1. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2019 Jan;15(1):43-49 - PubMed
    1. J Gastrointest Surg. 2004 Jan;8(1):48-55; discussion 54-5 - PubMed
    1. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2017 Apr;13(4):568-574 - PubMed
    1. Obes Facts. 2011;4 Suppl 1:42-6 - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources

  NODES
twitter 2