Obesity surgery · 2024
Laparoscopic Single Anastomosis Duodeno-Ileal Bypass Versus One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass as Revisional Procedures after Sleeve Gastrectomy: Meta-analysis and Systematic Review.
Систематический обзорСтатьяМетаанализСравнительное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Ahmed Yusuf, Ataya Karim, Almubarak Isa, Ali Manar, Almubarak Abdulla, Yusuf Walaa, Simeonovski Stefan, Mahran Mostafa Mohammed Saad, Aljaafreh Almoutuz, Bourji Hussein El, Yang Wah
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: It has been observed that 5-8% of primary bariatric procedures result in inadequate treatment response, necessitating the need for revisional surgery. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aim to compare the effectiveness of single anastomosis duodeno-ileal bypass (SADI) and one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) in addressing weight recurrence following sleeve gastrectomy.
METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases. Studies were considered eligible if they compared SADI with OAGB as revisional surgeries following sleeve gastrectomy.
RESULTS: Our search strategy yielded four articles with a total of 309 patients. Regarding weight loss at 1 year of follow-up, SADI was favorable based on excess weight loss percentage (EWL%) and total weight loss percentage (TWL%). At 2 years of follow-up, EWL% did not show a statistically significant difference between the two operations although TWL% was higher in SADI group. Regarding postoperative bile reflux, the OAGB group had a significantly higher incidence of biliary reflux (OR 0.15; 95% CI 0.04 to 0.53; P = 0.003). Patients enrolled in SADI did not develop anastomotic ulcers according to the four studies included in the analysis. In contrast, seven patients in the OAGB group did develop anastomotic ulcers, but the difference was not statistically significant (OR 0.23; 95% CI 0.05 to 1.10; P = 0.07).
CONCLUSION: ADI is a feasible procedure with a favorable outcome compared to OAGB as a revisional surgery following sleeve gastrectomy regarding weight loss at 1 year with a lower incidence of postoperative biliary reflux.
METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases. Studies were considered eligible if they compared SADI with OAGB as revisional surgeries following sleeve gastrectomy.
RESULTS: Our search strategy yielded four articles with a total of 309 patients. Regarding weight loss at 1 year of follow-up, SADI was favorable based on excess weight loss percentage (EWL%) and total weight loss percentage (TWL%). At 2 years of follow-up, EWL% did not show a statistically significant difference between the two operations although TWL% was higher in SADI group. Regarding postoperative bile reflux, the OAGB group had a significantly higher incidence of biliary reflux (OR 0.15; 95% CI 0.04 to 0.53; P = 0.003). Patients enrolled in SADI did not develop anastomotic ulcers according to the four studies included in the analysis. In contrast, seven patients in the OAGB group did develop anastomotic ulcers, but the difference was not statistically significant (OR 0.23; 95% CI 0.05 to 1.10; P = 0.07).
CONCLUSION: ADI is a feasible procedure with a favorable outcome compared to OAGB as a revisional surgery following sleeve gastrectomy regarding weight loss at 1 year with a lower incidence of postoperative biliary reflux.