Short Term Outcomes of Laparoscopic Roux-En-Y Gastric Bypass Versus Laparoscopic One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass in Super Obese Patients: Randomized Clinical Trial

Mahmoud El Ghoneimy Abd El-Sadek, A. Swelam, H. Abd-Allah, G. Moussa, Osama Helmy El Khadrawy
{"title":"Short Term Outcomes of Laparoscopic Roux-En-Y Gastric Bypass Versus Laparoscopic One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass in Super Obese Patients: Randomized Clinical Trial","authors":"Mahmoud El Ghoneimy Abd El-Sadek, A. Swelam, H. Abd-Allah, G. Moussa, Osama Helmy El Khadrawy","doi":"10.11648/J.JS.20210904.22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: One anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) has several apparent advantages over Roux-En-Y Gastric Bypass (RYGB). However, symptomatic biliary reflux and its potential risks have prevented its widespread adoption. The aim of this study was to assess the short term outcomes of LOAGB in comparison to LRYGB in treatment of patients with super obesity regarding weight loss, resolution/improvement of co-morbidities and impact on patients’ quality of life (QoL). Methods: One hundred adult patients with super obesity were randomly divided into 2 matched groups, 50 patients each; group I underwent LRYGB and group II underwent LOAGB. Results: The operative time was significantly longer in LRYGB (176.4±27.29 vs. 110.5±14.13 minutes, p<0.05). The frequency and severity of the early postoperative complications were comparable between both groups. No mortality or re-admission was reported in both groups. There are no patients lost to follow-up. Although, the mean Excess weight loss percent (EWL%) was 57% vs 64.7% and 69.7% vs 75.5% at one and two years follow-up in group I and II respectively, the differences were statistically insignificant. T2DM remission/improvement rates at 12th month were 88.9% and 94.1% in group I and II respectively without a statistically insignificant difference. In comparison to the preoperative Qol score, the postoperative score showed a statistically significant improvement (from 0.31 to 6 and from 0.41 to 6.32 in group I and II respectively). Conclusions: LOAGB had a shorter operative time and a tendency towards a higher EWL%, a better remission of obesity-related comorbidities and improvement in the patients QoL with comparable short term operative and postoperative complications. Thus, LOAGB can be considered an acceptable alternative to LRYGB in management of super obese patients.","PeriodicalId":101237,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11648/J.JS.20210904.22","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: One anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) has several apparent advantages over Roux-En-Y Gastric Bypass (RYGB). However, symptomatic biliary reflux and its potential risks have prevented its widespread adoption. The aim of this study was to assess the short term outcomes of LOAGB in comparison to LRYGB in treatment of patients with super obesity regarding weight loss, resolution/improvement of co-morbidities and impact on patients’ quality of life (QoL). Methods: One hundred adult patients with super obesity were randomly divided into 2 matched groups, 50 patients each; group I underwent LRYGB and group II underwent LOAGB. Results: The operative time was significantly longer in LRYGB (176.4±27.29 vs. 110.5±14.13 minutes, p<0.05). The frequency and severity of the early postoperative complications were comparable between both groups. No mortality or re-admission was reported in both groups. There are no patients lost to follow-up. Although, the mean Excess weight loss percent (EWL%) was 57% vs 64.7% and 69.7% vs 75.5% at one and two years follow-up in group I and II respectively, the differences were statistically insignificant. T2DM remission/improvement rates at 12th month were 88.9% and 94.1% in group I and II respectively without a statistically insignificant difference. In comparison to the preoperative Qol score, the postoperative score showed a statistically significant improvement (from 0.31 to 6 and from 0.41 to 6.32 in group I and II respectively). Conclusions: LOAGB had a shorter operative time and a tendency towards a higher EWL%, a better remission of obesity-related comorbidities and improvement in the patients QoL with comparable short term operative and postoperative complications. Thus, LOAGB can be considered an acceptable alternative to LRYGB in management of super obese patients.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
腹腔镜Roux-En-Y胃旁路术与腹腔镜一次吻合胃旁路术治疗超肥胖患者的短期疗效:随机临床试验
背景:一次吻合胃旁路术(OAGB)与Roux-En-Y胃旁路术(RYGB)相比有几个明显的优势。然而,症状性胆汁反流及其潜在风险阻碍了其广泛采用。本研究的目的是评估LOAGB与LRYGB在治疗超级肥胖患者方面的短期结果,包括体重减轻、合并症的解决/改善以及对患者生活质量(QoL)的影响。方法:100例成人超肥胖患者随机分为2组,每组50例;ⅰ组行LRYGB,ⅱ组行LOAGB。结果:LRYGB组手术时间(176.4±27.29分钟)明显长于LRYGB组(110.5±14.13分钟),p<0.05。两组术后早期并发症的发生频率和严重程度具有可比性。两组均无死亡或再入院报告。没有患者因随访而丢失。虽然在1年和2年的随访中,I组和II组的平均超重减重率(EWL%)分别为57%对64.7%和69.7%对75.5%,但差异无统计学意义。I组和II组12个月T2DM缓解/改善率分别为88.9%和94.1%,差异无统计学意义。与术前生活质量评分相比,术后生活质量评分有统计学意义的提高(I组从0.31提高到6,II组从0.41提高到6.32)。结论:LOAGB具有较短的手术时间和较高的EWL%的趋势,较好地缓解了肥胖相关的合并症,改善了患者的生活质量,且短期手术和术后并发症相当。因此,LOAGB可以被认为是治疗超级肥胖患者的一种可接受的替代方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A Case Report of Mesenteric Ischemia After COVID-19 Vaccination Short Term Outcomes of Laparoscopic Roux-En-Y Gastric Bypass Versus Laparoscopic One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass in Super Obese Patients: Randomized Clinical Trial The Intraoperative Finding of a Large Atrial Septum Defect Pre-Liver Transplantation: A Case Report Study on Preventive Intervention of Peri-knee Ecchymosis After Total Knee Replacement Late Primary B Cell Cerebral Lymphoma After Kidney Transplant: A Case Report and Literature Review
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1