ArticleObesity surgery2026
Ring-Augmented versus Non-Ring-Augmented One-Anastomosis Gastric Bypass as Revisional Surgery after Sleeve Gastrectomy: a Comparative Cohort Study.
Article in Obesity surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSleeve gastrectomy (SG) is the most frequently performed metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) worldwide, but long-term suboptimal weight loss (SOWL) or recurrent weight gain (RWG) affects up to one third of patients and often necessitates revisional procedures. One-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) is an effective revision, yet pouch dilation and late RWG remain concerns. Ring augmentation (RA) has been proposed to enhance restriction and sustain weight loss, but evidence in the revisional OAGB setting is limited.
methodsThis retrospective comparative cohort study analyzed 94 adults who underwent revisional OAGB after SG at a high-volume tertiary MBS center. Patients were grouped into two categories: Ring Augmented OAGB (RaOAGB) (n = 45) and Non-Ring Augmented OAGB (NRa-OAGB) (n = 49). The primary outcomes were percentage excess weight loss (%EWL), percentage total weight loss (%TWL), and change in body mass index (BMI) at 3, 6, and 12 months. Secondary outcomes included improvement of obesity-related conditions, metabolic parameters (lipid profile, HbA1c), nutritional markers, operative time, hospital stay, and early/late complications.
resultsBoth groups achieved significant weight reduction at 12 months (p < 0.001 within groups). RaOAGB yielded greater BMI reduction (27.6 vs. 32.2 kg/m²), %EWL (81.7% vs. 61.3%), and %TWL (31.5% vs. 24.2%) compared with NRa-OAGB (all p < 0.001). Lipid profiles improved in both groups; LDL decreased, and total cholesterol equalized by 12 months. Glycemic control changes were modest and similar between cohorts. Operative time, length of stay, and early postoperative complications were comparable. Ring-related adverse events were infrequent (food intolerance 6.7% vs. 4.1%; no erosions were observed; one patient (2.2%) required ring removal at 10 months due to persistent vomiting and food intolerance).
conclusionsRaOAGB is a safe and effective revisional option for RWG and SOWL after SG, achieving significantly greater 1-year weight loss than standard OAGB, with uncommon ring-related adverse events, including one ring removal. These findings support the role of mechanical reinforcement to enhance the durability of revisional bypass but warrant confirmation through long-term, multicenter randomized trials.
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.