AIM: The objective of this study is to compare 3-year follow-up results of one anastomosis gastric bypass (MGB-OAGB) and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) in terms of weight loss, complications, resolution of comorbidities and quality of life. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective randomised study of results between 100 LSG patients and 101 MGB-OAGB patients was done from 2012 to 2015. The results were compared regarding operative outcomes, percentage of excess weight loss (%EWL), complications, resolution of comorbidities and quality of life (BAROS score) at 3 years follow-up. RESULTS: Follow-up was achieved in 93 MGB-OAGB vs 92 LSG patients for 3-year period. The average %EWL for MGB-OAGB vs LSG was 66.48 vs 61.15% at the end of 3 years respectively, which was statistically insignificant. Diabetes remission was seen in 89.13% of MGB-OAGB patients and 81.82% of LSG patients. Remission of hypertension was seen in 74% of MGB-OAGB patients and 72.22% of LSG patients. Bariatric analysis reporting and outcome system (BAROS) with comorbidity in LSG patients and MGB-OAGB patients was 6.03 and 6.96 respectively, whereas in patients without comorbidity, BAROS score was 3.86 in LSG group and 4.34 in MGB-OAGB group. CONCLUSIONS: In our study, at 36 months follow up, there was no significant difference between LSG and MGB-OAGB in %EWL and remission of HTN. Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) remission rates were higher after MGB-OAGB as compared to LSG but the difference was statistically insignificant. MGB-OAGB patients with comorbidities have a better quality of life and BAROS score compared to LSG patients.
RCT Entities:
AIM: The objective of this study is to compare 3-year follow-up results of one anastomosis gastric bypass (MGB-OAGB) and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) in terms of weight loss, complications, resolution of comorbidities and quality of life. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective randomised study of results between 100 LSG patients and 101 MGB-OAGB patients was done from 2012 to 2015. The results were compared regarding operative outcomes, percentage of excess weight loss (%EWL), complications, resolution of comorbidities and quality of life (BAROS score) at 3 years follow-up. RESULTS: Follow-up was achieved in 93 MGB-OAGB vs 92 LSG patients for 3-year period. The average %EWL for MGB-OAGB vs LSG was 66.48 vs 61.15% at the end of 3 years respectively, which was statistically insignificant. Diabetes remission was seen in 89.13% of MGB-OAGB patients and 81.82% of LSG patients. Remission of hypertension was seen in 74% of MGB-OAGB patients and 72.22% of LSG patients. Bariatric analysis reporting and outcome system (BAROS) with comorbidity in LSG patients and MGB-OAGB patients was 6.03 and 6.96 respectively, whereas in patients without comorbidity, BAROS score was 3.86 in LSG group and 4.34 in MGB-OAGB group. CONCLUSIONS: In our study, at 36 months follow up, there was no significant difference between LSG and MGB-OAGB in %EWL and remission of HTN. Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) remission rates were higher after MGB-OAGB as compared to LSG but the difference was statistically insignificant. MGB-OAGB patients with comorbidities have a better quality of life and BAROS score compared to LSG patients.
Entities:
Keywords:
Bariatric analysis reporting and outcome system (BAROS); Gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD); Hypertension (HTN); Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG); One anastomosis gastric bypass (MGB-OAGB); Percentage actual weight loss (%AWL); Percentage excess weight loss (%EWL); Quality of life (QOL); Randomised control trial (RCT); Roux-En-Y gastric bypass (RYGB); Type 2 diabetes mellitus(T2DM)
Authors: John B Buse; Sonia Caprio; William T Cefalu; Antonio Ceriello; Stefano Del Prato; Silvio E Inzucchi; Sue McLaughlin; Gordon L Phillips; R Paul Robertson; Francesco Rubino; Richard Kahn; M Sue Kirkman Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Raquel Sánchez-Santos; Carlos Masdevall; Aniceto Baltasar; Candido Martínez-Blázquez; Amador García Ruiz de Gordejuela; Enric Ponsi; Andres Sánchez-Pernaute; Gregorio Vesperinas; Daniel Del Castillo; Ernest Bombuy; Carlos Durán-Escribano; Luis Ortega; Juan Carlos Ruiz de Adana; Javier Baltar; Ignacio Maruri; Emilio García-Blázquez; Antonio Torres Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2009-07-02 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Yingjun Quan; Ao Huang; Min Ye; Ming Xu; Biao Zhuang; Peng Zhang; Bo Yu; Zhijun Min Journal: Gastroenterol Res Pract Date: 2015-06-17 Impact factor: 2.260
Authors: Maurizio De Luca; Giacomo Piatto; Giovanni Merola; Jacques Himpens; Jean-Marc Chevallier; Miguel-A Carbajo; Kamal Mahawar; Alberto Sartori; Nicola Clemente; Miguel Herrera; Kelvin Higa; Wendy A Brown; Scott Shikora Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2021-05-03 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Almino C Ramos; Jean-Marc Chevallier; Kamal Mahawar; Wendy Brown; Lilian Kow; Kevin P White; Scott Shikora Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2020-05 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Francesco M Carrano; Angelo Iossa; Nicola Di Lorenzo; Gianfranco Silecchia; Katerina-Maria Kontouli; Dimitris Mavridis; Isaias Alarçon; Daniel M Felsenreich; Sergi Sanchez-Cordero; Angelo Di Vincenzo; M Carmen Balagué-Ponz; Rachel L Batterham; Nicole Bouvy; Catalin Copaescu; Dror Dicker; Martin Fried; Daniela Godoroja; David Goitein; Jason C G Halford; Marina Kalogridaki; Maurizio De Luca; Salvador Morales-Conde; Gerhard Prager; Andrea Pucci; Ramon Vilallonga; Iris Zani; Per Olav Vandvik; Stavros A Antoniou Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2022-01-20 Impact factor: 4.584