Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38662251›Full record

ArticleObesity surgery2024

Technical Variations and Considerations around OAGB in IFSO-APC and IFSO-MENAC Chapters, an Expert Survey.

Mohammad Kermansaravi, Shahab Shahabi Shahmiri, Lilian Kow, Khaled Gawdat, Syed Imran Abbas, Ahmad Aly, Ahmad Bashir, Mohit Bhandari, Ashraf Haddad, Mohamad Hayssam ElFawal and 16 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Obesity surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

26 authors at 16 institutions in 12 countries.

Mohammad KermansaraviDepartment of Surgery, Minimally Invasive Surgery Research Center, Division of Minimally Invasive and Bariatric Surgery, Hazrat‑E Fatemeh Hospital, School of Medicine, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. mkermansaravi@yahoo.com.ORCID 0000-0001-8978-9359
Shahab Shahabi ShahmiriDepartment of Surgery, Minimally Invasive Surgery Research Center, Division of Minimally Invasive and Bariatric Surgery, Hazrat‑E Fatemeh Hospital, School of Medicine, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Lilian KowAdelaide Bariatric Centre, Flinders University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.
Khaled GawdatBariatric Surgery Unit, Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt.
Syed Imran AbbasIranian Hospital, Al Wasl Road, Dubai, UAE.
Ahmad AlyAustin and Repatriation Medical Centre, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia.
Ahmad BashirMinimally Invasive and Bariatric Surgery, Gastrointestinal Bariatric and Metabolic Center (GBMC), Jordan Hospital, Amman, Jordan.
Mohit BhandariMohak Bariatrics and Robotics Center, Indore, India.
Ashraf HaddadMinimally Invasive and Bariatric Surgery, Gastrointestinal Bariatric and Metabolic Center (GBMC), Jordan Hospital, Amman, Jordan.
Mohamad Hayssam ElFawalMakassed General Hospital, Beirut, Lebanon.
Atif InamMetabolic, Thoracic & General Surgery Unit III, Department of General Surgery, Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Kazunori KasamaWeight Loss and Metabolic Surgery Center, Yotsuya Medical Cube, Tokyo, Japan.
Sang Hyun KimDepartment of Surgery, Soonchunhyang University Seoul Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Kuldeepak Singh KularMGB-OAGB Club, Kular Research Institute, Bija, India.
Muffazal LakdawalaSir H N Reliance Foundation Hospital, Mumbai, India.
Laurent Abram LayaniAl Sharq Hospital, Fujairah, UAE.
Wei-Jei LeeMedical Weight Loss Center, China Medical University Hsinchu Hospital, Zhubei, Taiwan.
Abdolreza PazoukiDepartment of Surgery, Minimally Invasive Surgery Research Center, Division of Minimally Invasive and Bariatric Surgery, Hazrat‑E Fatemeh Hospital, School of Medicine, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Arun PrasadApollo Hospital, New Delhi, India.
Bassem SafadiAman Hospital, Doha, Qatar.
Cunchuan WangDepartment of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University, Guangzhou, China.
Wah YangDepartment of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University, Guangzhou, China.
Reza AdibThe Wesley Hospital, Auchenflower, Queensland, Australia.
Amir Hossein Davarpanah JaziDepartment of Surgery, Minimally Invasive Surgery Research Center, Division of Minimally Invasive and Bariatric Surgery, Hazrat‑E Fatemeh Hospital, School of Medicine, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. davarpanahjazi@gmail.com.
Asim ShabbirNational University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
IFSO-APC/MENAC collaborators
Iran University of Medical Sciences · IRFirst Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University · CNJordan Hospital · JOAin Shams University · EGChina Medical University · TWFlinders University · AUIndo Korea Science and Technology · INMakassed General Hospital · LBNational University of Singapore · SGPakistan Institute of Medical Sciences · PKRazi Hospital · IRSir H.N. Reliance Foundation Hospital and Research Centre · INSoonchunhyang University Hospital Seoul · KRThe University of Melbourne · AUWesley Hospital · AUYotsuya Medical Cube · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the technical variations of one-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) among IFSO-APC and MENAC experts.

backgroundThe multitude of technical variations and patient selection challenges among metabolic and bariatric surgeons worldwide necessitates a heightened awareness of these issues. Understanding different perspectives and viewpoints can empower surgeons performing OAGB to adapt their techniques, leading to improved outcomes and reduced complications.

methodsThe scientific team of IFSO-APC, consisting of skilled bariatric and metabolic surgeons specializing in OAGB, conducted a confidential online survey. The survey aimed to assess technical variations and considerations related to OAGB within the IFSO-APC and IFSO-MENAC chapters. A total of 85 OAGB experts participated in the survey, providing their responses through a 35-question online format. The survey took place from January 1, 2024, to February 15, 2024.

resultsMost experts do not perform OAGB for children and adolescents younger than 18 years. Most experts create the gastric pouch over a 36-40-F bougie and prefer to create a gastrojejunostomy, at the posterior wall of the gastric pouch. An anti-reflux suture during OAGB is performed in all patients by 51.8% of experts. Most experts set a common limb length of > 4 m in revisional and conversional OAGBs to prevent nutritional complications.

conclusionThe ongoing debate among metabolic and bariatric surgeons regarding the technical variations and patient selection in OAGB remains a significant point of discussion. This survey demonstrated the variations in technical aspects and patient selection for OAGB among MBS surgeons in the IFSO-APC and IFSO-MENAC chapters. Standardizing the OAGB technique is crucial to ensure optimal safety and efficacy in this procedure.

Indexed as

Gastric BypassObesity, MorbidAdolescentAdultFemaleHumansMalePatient SelectionPractice Patterns, Physicians'Surveys and QuestionnairesMini gastric bypassOne-anastomosis gastric bypassSurveyTechnical variation

Identifiers

PMID38662251
OpenAlexW4395464293

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.