ArticleObesity surgery2025
The Safety and Efficacy of Laparoscopic One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass as a Revision for Laparoscopic Adjustable Gastric Banding and Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy.
Article in Obesity surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionLaparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) have been prominent bariatric surgeries in recent years. Despite their initial success, long-term outcomes indicate that a subset of patients experience weight gain recurrence or complications necessitating a secondary procedure. One anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) has emerged as a potential option for such revisional surgeries.
objectivesThis study aims to assess the safety and efficacy of revisional OAGB following LSG and LAGB procedures.
methodsMedical records of patients who underwent OAGB surgery between May 2016 and July 2020 were reviewed. Patients were categorized into three groups: primary OAGB, OAGB after LSG (Post LSG), and OAGB after LAGB (Post LAGB). Post-operative complications, body mass index (BMI), the percentage of total weight loss (TWL%), and excess BMI loss percentage (%EBMIL) were compared across these groups.
resultsA total of 345 patients were included, with 230 undergoing primary OAGB, 70 transitioning from LSG to OAGB, and 45 from LAGB to OAGB. The mean follow-up duration was 11.6 months. Preoperative BMIs were 43.0 ± 6.3, 40.5 ± 6.7, and 42.9 ± 6.6 for primary OAGB, Post LSG, and Post LAGB, respectively. TWL% at 12 months was 34.76% for primary OAGB, 20.66% for Post LSG, and 30.23% for Post LAGB. Late complications (> 30 days) occurred at rates of 9.5%, 24%, and 12.3% respectively.
conclusionThese findings indicate that revisional OAGB following LSG and LAGB is both safe and effective; however, it involves a slightly increased rate of complications and less pronounced weight loss compared to primary OAGB.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40517361What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.