Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2022
A Long-Term Comparative Study Between One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass and Sleeve Gastrectomy.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Plamper Andreas, Lingohr Philipp, Nadal Jennifer, Trebicka Jonel, Brol Maximilian J, Woestemeier Anna, Schmitz Sophia M-T, Alizai Patrick H, Neumann Ulf P, Ulmer Tom F, Rheinwalt Karl P
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: One anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) has become increasingly accepted in bariatric surgery and meanwhile represents the third most common procedure worldwide. While it shows promising weight loss results and comorbidity resolution, questions about issues such as reflux or nutritional deficiencies (ND) persist in the long term. On the other hand, the most frequently performed sleeve gastrectomy (SG) has to accept growing criticism regarding long-term results and reflux issues. There is a particular lack of long-term comparative data for both procedures. This study presents our long-term experience.
METHODS: We evaluated OAGB and SG patients retrospectively comparing for weight loss and resolution of comorbidities as well as perioperative and long-term complications in a follow-up period of 5 years.
RESULTS: Nine hundred eleven OAGB and 241 SG were included in the study. OAGB had a shorter operation time and hospital stay. Overall complication rate did not differ in both groups. Ulcers were more frequent in OAGB (7.7% vs. 1.7%, p = 0.001), whereas insufficient weight loss (IWL)/weight regain (WR) proved to be more prevalent in SG (25.7% vs. 6.4%, p < 0.001). The same held true for reflux (17.8% vs. 8.3%, p < .001). On the other hand, ND were more common in OAGB (20.0% vs. 12.0%, p = 0.005). Revisional surgery was more often indicated after SG. Analysis by linear mixed model showed that OAGB achieved a lower BMI/higher loss of BMI. Improvement of T2DM (94.6% vs. 85.2%, p = 0.008) and sleep apnea (88.8% vs. 78.8%, p = 0.01) was superior in OAGB.
CONCLUSIONS: OAGB had a superior effect on weight loss as well as improvement of T2DM and sleep apnea. Furthermore, long-term problems such as IWL/WR and reflux were more related to SG. On the other hand, a malabsorptive procedure such as OAGB showed a higher risk for ND. Our findings support the available data in the literature.
METHODS: We evaluated OAGB and SG patients retrospectively comparing for weight loss and resolution of comorbidities as well as perioperative and long-term complications in a follow-up period of 5 years.
RESULTS: Nine hundred eleven OAGB and 241 SG were included in the study. OAGB had a shorter operation time and hospital stay. Overall complication rate did not differ in both groups. Ulcers were more frequent in OAGB (7.7% vs. 1.7%, p = 0.001), whereas insufficient weight loss (IWL)/weight regain (WR) proved to be more prevalent in SG (25.7% vs. 6.4%, p < 0.001). The same held true for reflux (17.8% vs. 8.3%, p < .001). On the other hand, ND were more common in OAGB (20.0% vs. 12.0%, p = 0.005). Revisional surgery was more often indicated after SG. Analysis by linear mixed model showed that OAGB achieved a lower BMI/higher loss of BMI. Improvement of T2DM (94.6% vs. 85.2%, p = 0.008) and sleep apnea (88.8% vs. 78.8%, p = 0.01) was superior in OAGB.
CONCLUSIONS: OAGB had a superior effect on weight loss as well as improvement of T2DM and sleep apnea. Furthermore, long-term problems such as IWL/WR and reflux were more related to SG. On the other hand, a malabsorptive procedure such as OAGB showed a higher risk for ND. Our findings support the available data in the literature.