Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass Versus Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass for Obesity: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

  • Original Contributions
  • Published:
Obesity Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

We aim to compare the efficacy and safety outcomes of one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB).

Methods

We searched Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, and the Cochrane Library from inception to May 14, 2019, without language restrictions, for randomized clinical trials comparing OAGB with RYGB in obesity. Quality of included trials was assessed by Cochrane Collaboration’s tool; quality of evidence was evaluated by GRADE approach. The primary outcome was excess body mass index (BMI) loss at 2 years.

Results

We identified 206 reports; after exclusions, three trials with a total of 733 patients were eligible for analysis. Compared with RYGB, OAGB was associated with more excess BMI loss at 2 years (mean difference (MD), 10.22; 95% CI, 3.05 to17.40; I2 = 95%; low-quality evidence), with benefit seen in OAGB using non-obese patients (MD, 17.10; 95% CI, 15.76 to18.44; P for interaction = 0.007 ) and no benefit in OAGB using standard length of biliopancreatic limb (MD, 6.49; 95% CI, − 1.09 to 14.08). Moreover, individuals allocated to OAGB compared with RYGB had a higher remission rate of type 2 diabetes(T2D) (risk ratio (RR), 1.13; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.27; I2 = 0%). No statistically significant difference was found between the two surgical groups in adverse events.

Conclusion

OAGB is possibly associated with more body weight loss compared with RYGB in patients with obesity, despite the low quality of evidence caused by inconsistent of the effect of biliopancreatic limb length in OAGB group. This benefit appears to be confined to OAGB using the extended length of the biliopancreatic limb but not to OAGB using the standard length of the biliopancreatic limb, compared with RYBG. Additional large clinical studies are needed to assess the impact of limb length in OAGB.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. WHO. Obesity and Overweight. WHO Fact Sheet. 2018;WHO: Geneva.

  2. Gloy VL, Briel M, Bhatt DL, et al. Bariatric surgery versus non-surgical treatment for obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 2013;347:f5934.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Schauer PR, Bhatt DL, Kirwan JP, et al. Bariatric surgery versus intensive medical therapy for diabetes-5-year outcomes. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(7):641–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Schauer PR, Bhatt DL, Kirwan JP, et al. Bariatric surgery versus intensive medical therapy for diabetes—3-year outcomes. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(21):2002–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Schauer PR, Kashyap SR, Wolski K, et al. Bariatric surgery versus intensive medical therapy in obese patients with diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(17):1567–76.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. DeMaria EJ, Pate V, Warthen M, et al. Baseline data from American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery-designated Bariatric Surgery Centers of Excellence using the Bariatric Outcomes Longitudinal Database. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2010;6(4):347–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Rutledge R. The mini-gastric bypass: experience with the first 1274 cases. Obes Surg. 2001;11(3):276–80.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Mahawar KK, Kular KS, Parmar C, et al. Perioperative practices concerning one anastomosis (mini) gastric bypass: a survey of 210 surgeons. Obes Surg. 2018;28(1):204–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Mahawar KK, Himpens J, Shikora SA, et al. The first consensus statement on one anastomosis/mini gastric bypass (OAGB/MGB) using a modified Delphi approach. Obes Surg. 2018;28(2):303–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Carbajo MA, Luque-de-Leon E, Jimenez JM, et al. Laparoscopic one-anastomosis gastric bypass: technique, results, and long-term follow-up in 1200 patients. Obes Surg. 2017;27(5):1153–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Viste A, Bjornestad E, Opheim P, et al. Risk of carcinoma following gastric operations for benign disease. A historical cohort study of 3470 patients. Lancet (London, England). 1986;2(8505):502–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Magouliotis DE, Tasiopoulou VS, Tzovaras G. One anastomosis gastric bypass versus Roux-en-Y gastric bypass for morbid obesity: a meta-analysis. Clin Obes. 2018;8(3):159–69.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Robert M, Espalieu P, Pelascini E, et al. Efficacy and safety of one anastomosis gastric bypass versus Roux-en-Y gastric bypass for obesity (YOMEGA): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial. Lancet (London, England). 2019;393(10178):1299–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Ruiz-Tovar J, Carbajo MA, Jimenez JM, et al. Long-term follow-up after sleeve gastrectomy versus Roux-en-Y gastric bypass versus one-anastomosis gastric bypass: a prospective randomized comparative study of weight loss and remission of comorbidities. Surg Endosc. 2019;33(2):401–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. JPT Higgins SGE. the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. The Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford. 2011;Version 5.1.0.

  16. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(4):W65–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 2008;336(7650):924–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002;21(11):1539–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Lee WJ, Yu PJ, Wang W, et al. Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y versus mini-gastric bypass for the treatment of morbid obesity: a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial. Ann Surg. 2005;242(1):20–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Nabil TM, Khalil AH, Mikhail S, et al. Conventional versus distal laparoscopic one-anastomosis gastric bypass: a randomized controlled trial with 1-year follow-up. Obes Surg. 2019;8

  21. Komaei I, Sarra F, Lazzara C, et al. One anastomosis gastric bypass-mini gastric bypass with tailored biliopancreatic limb length formula relative to small bowel length: preliminary results. Obes Surg. 2019;29(9):3062–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37, Guo Xue Xiang, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, China

    Desheng Jia, Huiwen Tan & Fang Fang

  2. University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

    Andrew Faramand

Authors
  1. Desheng Jia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Huiwen Tan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Andrew Faramand
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Fang Fang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fang Fang.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights

This is a systematic review, and thus, no human or animal was included in the study.

Informed Consent

This is a systematic review, and thus, no individual participant was included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 1668 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jia, D., Tan, H., Faramand, A. et al. One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass Versus Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass for Obesity: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials. OBES SURG 30, 1211–1218 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-019-04288-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-019-04288-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation