ArticleUpdates in surgery2025
Laparoscopic revision after one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB): a 4-years experience in a single high-volume bariatric surgery center in northern Italy.
Article in Updates in surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Laparoscopic Reversal of One-Anastomosis Gastric Bypass After Sleeve Gastrectomy: A Case Report.The American journal of case reports · 2026Article
- The effect of endoscopic transoral outlet reduction (TORe) on weight recidivism and insufficient weight loss following one-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB). : Tore after OAGB for weight recidivism.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
One anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) is gaining popularity among bariatric procedures. However, data on the number and outcomes of revisional surgeries is scarce. This study included patients undergoing OAGB revision in a high-volume centre between January 2020 and October 2024. The study evaluates the indication for revision, the type of procedure performed, and the success of revisional surgery, assessed by symptom resolution or percent excess weight loss (%EWL) > 40% at 2 years. OAGB was performed on 3280 patients, of which 52 (1.6%) necessitated surgical revision for late complications as well as 18 patients who had their primary OAGB elsewhere. A total of 68 patients (47 females, 21 males) underwent OAGB revision. The mean time to revision after primary OAGB was 28 months. Indications for revision in the 68 patients were recurrent weight gain (51.5%, 0.73% of the total), severe bile reflux (29.4%, 0.52% of the total), marginal ulcers (7.4%, 0.12% of the total), excessive malabsorption (5.9%, 0.06% of the total), and stenosis (5.9%, 0.12% of the total). Revisional procedures in the 68 patients included biliary-pancreatic limb lengthening (47%), conversion to RYGB (29.4%), redo gastro-jejunal anastomosis (13.3%), biliary-pancreatic limb shortening (5.9%), and pouch resizing (4.4%). There were no major postoperative complications and 5.8% minor complications, all managed conservatively. At 20 months, 98.5% of revisional surgeries were successful, with complete symptom resolution for reflux, anastomotic ulcers and stenosis. The mean of %EWL in the recurrent weight gain group was 33.7%, 57.4% and 84% at 3 months, 1 year and 2 years. OAGB appears to be a safe procedure with a low revision rate. When necessary, surgical revision procedures can be tailored and have a high success rates and low morbidity. A management algorithm has been developed and proposed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.