Affiliation:
1. Department of Metabolic/Bariatric Medical Center Suzhou BenQ Medical Center, The Affiliated BenQ Hospital of Nanjing Medical University Suzhou Jiangsu Province China
2. Department of General Surgery The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University Suzhou China
3. Medical Weight Loss Center, Department of General Surgery China Medical University Hsinchu Hospital Taiwan China
Abstract
AbstractBackgroundOne anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) is a new recognized metabolic surgery, but the problem that we cannot screen the excluded stomach is a troubling issue in China. The emergence of sleeve gastrectomy plus one anastomosis bipartition (SG + OAB) makes us see a hope to solve this problem.ObjectivesBy comparing the efficacy of the two surgical methods, to evaluate whether SG + OAB surgery can solve the dilemma faced by OAGB that the excluded stomach cannot be screened.MethodsA retrospective study to compare the patients who underwent OAGB and SG + OAB was conducted. The main outcome measures were (1) operation risk, (2) weight loss, and (3) diabetes remission at 6 months.ResultsThis study was conducted in the bariatric/metabolic surgical center. From November 2021 to February 2022, a total of 30 patients with obesity who received SG + OAB surgery were recruited. Another matched 60 patients undergoing OAGB were recruited as control group. There was no difference in preoperative age (32.15 ± 9.02 vs. 34.47 ± 7.22; p = .224), female ratio (83% vs. 85%; p = .837), and BMI (36.18 ± 5.30 vs. 34.68 ± 5.58; p = .217) between the two groups. OAGB had a shorter mean operation time (121.67 ± 20.41 vs. 143.50 ± 25.07 min; p < .001) and a lower intraoperative blood loss (21.92 ± 12.35 vs. 32.43 ± 22.01 mL; p = .005), but a longer postoperative flatus passage (2.13 ± 0.43 vs. 1.87 ± 0.43 days; p = .007) compared with the SG + OAB group. Two patients (6.7%) developed major surgical complication in SG + OAB group but no major complication developed in OAGB group. At 6 months after surgery, SG + OAB had a higher %total weight loss than OAGB (31.05 ± 3.12 vs. 28.14 ± 5.43%; p = .015), but diabetes remission rate was similarly high in both groups.ConclusionsSG + OAB operation had a non‐inferior or even better weight loss than OAGB, with a similar glycemic control efficacy. However, the high complication rate of SG + OAB is the major drawback that needs attention.
Reference30 articles.
1. Metabolic/Bariatric Surgery Worldwide 2008
2. IFSO Worldwide Survey 2016: Primary, Endoluminal, and Revisional Procedures
3. Bariatric Surgery Survey 2018: Similarities and Disparities Among the 5 IFSO Chapters
4. Chinese obesity and metabolic surgery database: annual report 2021;Chinese Obesity and Metabolic Surgery Collaborative, Chinese Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery;Chin J Obes Metab Dis (electronic edition),2022
5. Current cancer situation in China: good or bad news from the 2018 Global Cancer Statistics?;Rui‐Mei F;Cancer Commun,2019