Revisional One-Anastomosis Gastric Bypass After Restrictive Index Surgery—a Metaanalysis and Comparison with Revisional Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass

• Published in: Obesity surgery 2021-03, Vol.31 (3), p.949-964
• Main Authors: Yeo, Charleen, Ho, Glen, Syn, Nicholas, Mak, Malcolm, Ahmed, Saleem, Oo, Aung Myint, Koura, Aaryan, Kaushal, Sanghvi, Yeo, Danson
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adult; Body Mass Index; Female; Gastric Bypass; Gastrointestinal surgery; Humans; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Metabolic syndrome; Obesity, Morbid - surgery; Original Contributions; Reoperation; Retrospective Studies; Surgery; Treatment Outcome; Weight Loss
• ISSN: 0960-8923; 1708-0428
• DOI: 10.1007/s11695-020-05094-y

Background One-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) was established as a recognized bariatric procedure in the 2018 International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders (IFSO) position statement. This study evaluates the outcomes of revisional OAGB (rOAGB) after a restrictive index procedure, and to compare it to revisional RYGB (rRYGB). Methods A literature search was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines on papers published from inception till February 2020. Original studies involving patients who underwent rOAGB after a primary failed restrictive procedure were included. The primary outcome measured was postrOAGB weight loss. Secondary outcome measures include comorbidity resolution, operative duration, length of stay, morbidity, and mortality. Results A total of 21 studies with 1377 patients were included. Five studies compared rOAGB versus rRYGB. Majority of the patients (76%) were female, with mean age of 43.5 years old. Mean body mass index (BMI) before revisional surgery was 41.6 kg/m 2 . The most common biliopancreatic limb length was 200 cm. Percentage of excess weight loss after rOAGB increases to a maximum of 76.0% at 48 months postsurgery. rOAGB resulted in a pooled prevalence of diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and obstructive sleep apnea resolution of 74.9%, 48.4%, 63.2%, and 75.7% respectively. When compared to rRYGB, rOAGB demonstrated greater weight loss, comparable metabolic syndrome resolution, but with a shorter operating time. Morbidity and mortality rates were low across all studies. Conclusions rOAGB has potential as an alternative revisional surgery, with weight loss profiles and rates of metabolic syndrome resolution that are comparable to rRYGB.