The Outcomes of Revisional One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass Versus Revisional Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass After Primary Restrictive Procedures: A Prospective Nonrandomized Comparative Study

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Osama Taha ◽  
Mahmoud Abdelaal ◽  
Awny Asklany ◽  
Mohamed Alaa
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Bypass ◽  
Comparative Study ◽  
One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass ◽  
Restrictive Procedures

Results of The Comparative Study of 200 Cases: One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass vs Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass

2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (9) ◽  
pp. 2597-2602 ◽  
Author(s):  
Salvador Navarrete ◽  
José Luis Leyba ◽  
Salvador Navarrete Ll ◽  
Guillermo Borjas ◽  
José León Tapia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Bypass ◽  
Comparative Study ◽  
One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass ◽  
The Comparative Study

scholarly journals Resectional One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass/Mini Gastric Bypass as a Novel Option for Revision of Restrictive Procedures: Preliminary Results

2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roger Noun ◽  
Rita Slim ◽  
Ghassan Chakhtoura ◽  
Joseph Gharios ◽  
Elie Chouillard ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Weight Loss ◽  
Gastric Bypass ◽  
Revisional Surgery ◽  
Body Weight Loss ◽  
Total Body Weight ◽  
One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass ◽  
Mini Gastric Bypass ◽  
Restrictive Procedures ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Total Body

Background. Revisional surgery is becoming a common and challenging practice in bariatric centers. The aim of this study was to evaluate resectional one anastomosis gastric bypass/mini gastric bypass (R-OAGB/MGB) as a revisional procedure. Methods. From January 2016 to February 2017, data on 21 consecutive patients undergoing R-OAGB/MGB for weight loss failure after primary restrictive procedures were prospectively collected and analysed. Results. Mean age was 39 ± 12 years (18–65), and 11 (52.3%) were women. The mean operative time was 96.4 ± 20.9 min (range, 122–80), and the mean postoperative stay was 47.8 ± 7.4 hours (range, 36–73). There were no deaths and no procedure-related complications. The mean body mass index (BMI) decreased from 42.9 ± 6.5 at the time of R-OAGB/MGB to 28.5 ± 4 at the 12-month follow-up. At that time point, the mean percentage of BMI loss (%EBL) and the mean percentage of total body weight loss (%TWL) reached 81.6 ± 0.17% and 35 ± 0.01%, respectively. Conclusion. R-OAGB/MGB was technically straightforward, effective, and safe in this at-surgical risk population. R-OAGB/MGB should be added to the armamentarium of revisional bariatric procedures considering its technical aspects and the potential advantage on weight loss.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document