ArticleObesity surgery2025
Long-Term Outcomes of Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy Versus One-Anastomosis Gastric Bypass: A Retrospective Comparative Study with ≥ 7 Years Follow-Up.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the long-term outcomes of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) and one-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) in patients with morbid obesity.
methodsThis retrospective study included 105 patients who underwent LSG (n=57) or OAGB (n=48) with a minimum follow-up of 7 years. Preoperative and postoperative weight parameters, obesity related diseases, and complications were analyzed.
resultsNo significant differences were observed between the groups in terms of demographic characteristics . The follow-up duration in the OAGB group was found to be significantly longer compared to the SG group. Both procedures resulted in significant and sustained weight loss. However, OAGB was associated with superior outcomes in terms of excess weight loss (EWL>50%: 95.8% vs. 73.6%, p<0.05) and total weight loss (TWL>20%). Remission rates of type 2 diabetes were similar (OAGB: 84%, LSG: 64%; p=0.187). OAGB showed significantly better outcomes in hypertension remission (100% vs. 71%; p<0.05) and reduction in total cholesterol levels. A total of 15 complications were identified in the patient cohort.Anemia (n:9) was more common after OAGB (14.5% vs. 3.5%). Other complications included internal hernia (n:1), ulcer bleeding (n:1), and persistent vomiting (n:2) in the OAGB group; and staple line leak (n:1) and hepatic abscess (n:1) in the LSG group.
conclusionBoth LSG and OAGB are effective in achieving long-term weight loss and improving obesity-related comorbidities. OAGB offers greater weight reduction and better metabolic outcomes, particularly in hypertension and dyslipidemia. However, its higher rate of nutritional complications requires careful long-term follow-up.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41238972What 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.