Revisional bariatric surgery following sleeve gastrectomy: a meta-analysis comparing Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and one anastomosis gastric bypass.

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q3 SURGERY
G Santoro, J Alfred, A Rehman, N Sheriff, H Naing, A Tandon
{"title":"Revisional bariatric surgery following sleeve gastrectomy: a meta-analysis comparing Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and one anastomosis gastric bypass.","authors":"G Santoro, J Alfred, A Rehman, N Sheriff, H Naing, A Tandon","doi":"10.1308/rcsann.2024.0054","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The number of bariatric operations is increasing each year. Sleeve gastrectomy is the most popular procedure; however, it often requires revision surgery because of insufficient weight loss, weight regain or gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD). The most popular revisional procedures are Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB). The primary outcome of this meta-analysis was weight loss after revisional surgery following laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and the secondary outcomes were gastro-oesophageal reflux, BMI difference, operative time, bleeding and anastomotic leak.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic electronic search was undertaken using PubMed, MEDLINE, Ovid, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar following PRISMA guidelines. The initial search identified 2,546 articles. After screening, seven papers met the inclusion criteria: six retrospective studies and one randomised controlled trial.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 802 patients met the inclusion criteria: 390 had an OAGB and a further 412 had an RYBG. All patients previously had a sleeve gastrectomy for weight loss. The length of follow-up was 12 months for our primary outcome. We found no statistically significant difference in excess weight loss (%EWL) between OAGB and RYGB (<i>p</i> = 0.11). The incidence of postoperative reflux was statistically significantly higher in the OAGB group (16% vs 10.1%, <i>p</i> < 0.003). Operative time was statistically significantly lower in the OAGB group (<i>p</i> = 0.04).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This meta-analysis showed no statistically significant difference between the two revision bariatric surgery procedures for %EWL. RYGB was superior to OAGB in reducing the incidence of symptomatic GORD, whereas OAGB had a significant shorter operative time.</p>","PeriodicalId":8088,"journal":{"name":"Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1308/rcsann.2024.0054","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The number of bariatric operations is increasing each year. Sleeve gastrectomy is the most popular procedure; however, it often requires revision surgery because of insufficient weight loss, weight regain or gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD). The most popular revisional procedures are Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB). The primary outcome of this meta-analysis was weight loss after revisional surgery following laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and the secondary outcomes were gastro-oesophageal reflux, BMI difference, operative time, bleeding and anastomotic leak.

Methods: A systematic electronic search was undertaken using PubMed, MEDLINE, Ovid, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar following PRISMA guidelines. The initial search identified 2,546 articles. After screening, seven papers met the inclusion criteria: six retrospective studies and one randomised controlled trial.

Results: In total, 802 patients met the inclusion criteria: 390 had an OAGB and a further 412 had an RYBG. All patients previously had a sleeve gastrectomy for weight loss. The length of follow-up was 12 months for our primary outcome. We found no statistically significant difference in excess weight loss (%EWL) between OAGB and RYGB (p = 0.11). The incidence of postoperative reflux was statistically significantly higher in the OAGB group (16% vs 10.1%, p < 0.003). Operative time was statistically significantly lower in the OAGB group (p = 0.04).

Conclusions: This meta-analysis showed no statistically significant difference between the two revision bariatric surgery procedures for %EWL. RYGB was superior to OAGB in reducing the incidence of symptomatic GORD, whereas OAGB had a significant shorter operative time.

袖带胃切除术后的再减肥手术:Roux-en-Y 胃旁路术与单吻合胃旁路术的荟萃分析比较。
简介减肥手术的数量每年都在增加。袖带胃切除术是最受欢迎的手术;然而,由于体重减轻不足、体重反弹或胃食管反流病(GORD),往往需要进行翻修手术。最受欢迎的翻修手术是 Roux-en-Y 胃旁路术(RYGB)和单吻合胃旁路术(OAGB)。这项荟萃分析的主要结果是腹腔镜袖带胃切除术后翻修手术的体重减轻,次要结果是胃食管反流、体重指数差异、手术时间、出血和吻合口漏:按照 PRISMA 指南,使用 PubMed、MEDLINE、Ovid、Cochrane Library 和 Google Scholar 进行了系统的电子检索。初步检索发现了 2,546 篇文章。经过筛选,7 篇论文符合纳入标准:6 篇回顾性研究和 1 篇随机对照试验:共有 802 名患者符合纳入标准:结果:共有 802 名患者符合纳入标准:390 名患者接受了 OAGB,另有 412 名患者接受了 RYBG。所有患者都曾因减肥而接受过袖状胃切除术。主要结果的随访时间为 12 个月。我们发现,OAGB 和 RYGB 在超重率 (%EWL) 上没有明显的统计学差异(p = 0.11)。据统计,OAGB 组术后反流的发生率明显更高(16% vs 10.1%,P < 0.003)。OAGB组的手术时间明显更短(p = 0.04):这项荟萃分析表明,两种改良减肥手术在EWL%方面没有明显的统计学差异。在降低症状性胃食管反流的发生率方面,RYGB 优于 OAGB,而 OAGB 的手术时间明显更短。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
316
期刊介绍: The Annals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England is the official scholarly research journal of the Royal College of Surgeons and is published eight times a year in January, February, March, April, May, July, September and November. The main aim of the journal is to publish high-quality, peer-reviewed papers that relate to all branches of surgery. The Annals also includes letters and comments, a regular technical section, controversial topics, CORESS feedback and book reviews. The editorial board is composed of experts from all the surgical specialties.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信