Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Early Outcomes and Mid-Term Safety of One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass Are Comparable with Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass: a Single Center Experience

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

Abstract

Background

The use of one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) has increased in recent years. However, the efficacy and safety outcomes of this procedure remain under debate. Here, we compare our early outcome and mid-term safety of OAGB with primary Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB).

Methods

This was a retrospective study using computerized electronic medical records data of patients who underwent RYGB or OAGB as a primary procedure from February 2012 to February 2019 in our bariatric center. Data collected included demographics, weight-outcomes, adverse events, hospital readmission, reoperation rates, and mortality following both procedures.

Results

A total of 314 patients were included (132 RYGB and 182 OAGB). Operative time and costs were significantly lower for OAGB (80 vs. 125 min, p<0.01 and 2018.8 vs. 2912.3 USD, p < 0.01, respectively), but length of hospital stay was longer (4.06 ± 0.67 days vs. 3.58 ± 0.79, p < 0.0001). At 12 months post-surgery, the percentage of excess body mass index loss was comparable between the two groups, but the change in body mass index (BMI) was significantly higher in the OAGB group. Early (< 30 days) and late (> 30 days) surgical adverse events were also similar between the two groups.

Conclusion

Comparable short- and mid-term outcomes and adverse events are found for primary OAGB and RYGB. OAGB is not inferior to RYGB as a primary bariatric procedure for the treatment of obesity.

Graphical abstract

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

BS:

Bariatric surgery

BMI:

Body mass index

CHS:

Clalit Health Services

EBMIL:

Excess BMI loss

ED:

Emergency department

ERAS:

Enhanced recovery after surgery

HMO:

Health maintenance organization

IFSO:

International Federation for Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders

NIH:

National Institutes of Health

OAGB:

One anastomosis gastric bypass

RYGB:

Roux-en-Y gastric bypass

WHO:

World Health Organization

LOS:

Length of stay

AEs:

Adverse events

T2DM:

Type2 diabetes mellitus

References

  1. WHO | Controlling the global obesity epidemic [Internet]. WHO. World Health Organization; [cited 2020 May 27]. Available from: https://www.who.int/nutrition/topics/obesity/en/

  2. inhis_3.pdf [Internet]. [cited 2020 May 31]. Available from: https://www.health.gov.il/publicationsfiles/inhis_3.pdf

  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;376:641–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Nguyen NT, Masoomi H, Magno CP, et al. Trends in use of bariatric surgery, 2003-2008. J Am Coll Surg. 2011;213(2):261–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Berbiglia L, Zografakis JG, Dan AG. Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: surgical technique and perioperative care. Surg Clin North Am. 2016;96(4):773–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Rutledge R. The mini-gastric bypass: experience with the first 1,274 cases. Obes Surg. 2001;11(3):276–80.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Consensus Conference Contributors IFSO, Ramos AC, Chevallier J-M, et al. IFSO (International Federation for Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders) consensus conference statement on one-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB-MGB): results of a modified Delphi study. Obes Surg. 2020;30(5):1625–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 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. 2019;393(10178):1299–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Lee W-J, Almalki OM, Ser K-H, et al. Randomized controlled trial of one anastomosis gastric bypass versus Roux-en-Y gastric bypass for obesity: comparison of the YOMEGA and Taiwan studies. Obes Surg. 2019;29(9):3047–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Rheinwalt KP, Plamper A, Rückbeil MV, et al. One anastomosis gastric bypass-mini-gastric bypass (OAGB-MGB) versus Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB)-a mid-term cohort study with 612 patients. Obes Surg. 2020;30(4):1230–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 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 

  12. 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. 2020;30(4):1211–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Wang F-G, Yan W-M, Yan M, et al. Outcomes of Mini vs Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Int J Surg. 2018 Aug;56:7–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kaplan U, Romano-Zelekha O, Goitein D, et al. Trends in bariatric surgery: a 5-year analysis of the Israel National Bariatric Surgery Registry. Obes Surg. 2020;30(5):1761–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Gastrointestinal surgery for severe obesity. National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference Statement. Am J Clin Nutr. 1992;55(2):615S–9S.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien P-A. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240(2):205–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Musella M, Susa A, Manno E, et al. Complications following the mini/one anastomosis gastric bypass (MGB/OAGB): a multi-institutional survey on 2678 patients with a mid-term (5 years) follow-up. Obes Surg. 2017;27(11):2956–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Lee W-J, Ser K-H, Lee Y-C, et al. Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y vs. mini-gastric bypass for the treatment of morbid obesity: a 10-year experience. Obes Surg. 2012;22(12):1827–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Solouki A, Kermansaravi M, Davarpanah Jazi A, et al. One-anastomosis gastric bypass as an alternative procedure of choice in morbidly obese patients. J Res Med Sci. 2018;23(1):84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Chow A, Neville A, Kolozsvari N. Smoking in bariatric surgery: a systematic review. Surg Endosc [Internet]. 2020 10 [cited 2020 Oct 2]; Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00464-020-07669-3

  21. Puzziferri N, Roshek TB, Mayo HG, et al. Long-term follow-up after bariatric surgery: a systematic review. JAMA. 2014;312(9):934–42.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Uri Kaplan and Hadar Aboody-Nevo contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Emek Medical Center, 21 Izhak Rabin Blvd, 1834111, Afula, Israel

    Uri Kaplan, Hadar Aboody-Nevo, Ron Dar, Shams-Eldin Mokary, Dan Hershko, Doron Kopelman & Nasser Sakran

  2. Emek Bariatric Center, Afula, Israel

    Uri Kaplan & Nasser Sakran

  3. Rappaport Faculty of Medicine, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel

    Ian M. Gralnek, Ron Dar, Shams-Eldin Mokary, Dan Hershko, Doron Kopelman & Nasser Sakran

  4. Ellen and Pinchas Mamber Institute of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Emek Medical Center, Afula, Israel

    Ian M. Gralnek

  5. Department of Nutritional Sciences, School of Health Sciences, Ariel University, Ariel, Israel

    Shiri Sherf-Dagan

  6. Department of Nutrition, Assuta Medical Center, Tel-Aviv, Israel

    Shiri Sherf-Dagan

Authors
  1. Uri Kaplan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hadar Aboody-Nevo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ian M. Gralnek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Shiri Sherf-Dagan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ron Dar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Shams-Eldin Mokary
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Dan Hershko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Doron Kopelman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Nasser Sakran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nasser Sakran.

Ethics declarations

Statement of Human Rights

All procedures performed in this study were accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kaplan, U., Aboody-Nevo, H., Gralnek, I.M. et al. Early Outcomes and Mid-Term Safety of One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass Are Comparable with Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass: a Single Center Experience. OBES SURG 31, 3786–3792 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-021-05508-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-021-05508-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation