One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass Versus Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass for Obesity: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials
Introduction We aim to compare the efficacy and safety outcomes of one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). Methods We searched Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, and the Cochrane Library from inception to May 14, 2019, without language restrictions, for randomized clinica...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Obesity surgery 2020-04, Vol.30 (4), p.1211-1218 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 1218 |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 1211 |
container_title | Obesity surgery |
container_volume | 30 |
creator | Jia, Desheng Tan, Huiwen Faramand, Andrew Fang, Fang |
description | Introduction
We aim to compare the efficacy and safety outcomes of one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB).
Methods
We searched Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, and the Cochrane Library from inception to May 14, 2019, without language restrictions, for randomized clinical trials comparing OAGB with RYGB in obesity. Quality of included trials was assessed by Cochrane Collaboration’s tool; quality of evidence was evaluated by GRADE approach. The primary outcome was excess body mass index (BMI) loss at 2 years.
Results
We identified 206 reports; after exclusions, three trials with a total of 733 patients were eligible for analysis. Compared with RYGB, OAGB was associated with more excess BMI loss at 2 years (mean difference (MD), 10.22; 95% CI, 3.05 to17.40;
I
2
= 95%; low-quality evidence), with benefit seen in OAGB using non-obese patients (MD, 17.10; 95% CI, 15.76 to18.44;
P
for interaction = 0.007 ) and no benefit in OAGB using standard length of biliopancreatic limb (MD, 6.49; 95% CI, − 1.09 to 14.08). Moreover, individuals allocated to OAGB compared with RYGB had a higher remission rate of type 2 diabetes(T2D) (risk ratio (RR), 1.13; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.27;
I
2
= 0%). No statistically significant difference was found between the two surgical groups in adverse events.
Conclusion
OAGB is possibly associated with more body weight loss compared with RYGB in patients with obesity, despite the low quality of evidence caused by inconsistent of the effect of biliopancreatic limb length in OAGB group. This benefit appears to be confined to OAGB using the extended length of the biliopancreatic limb but not to OAGB using the standard length of the biliopancreatic limb, compared with RYBG. Additional large clinical studies are needed to assess the impact of limb length in OAGB. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s11695-019-04288-3 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2316778631</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2316778631</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-a70b04a3aebe689545edfec149a1b202d481dc938a9936906d7a31151fe67abf3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kc9u1DAQxi0EokvhBTggS1y4uPhPYsfcygpKpVYrLQWJk-UkE-QqiRdPAoSX4JXxdguVeuA0M57ffJ-sj5Dngp8Izs1rFELbknFhGS9kVTH1gKyE4dXN-JCsuNWcVVaqI_IE8ZpzKbSUj8mREqawgtsV-b0ZgZ6OHqc4RAxIz3KbQkPfLjuPSD9DwhnpNs4_GYzsy_19FxPd1IBhWt5QTz8uOMHgpwxs4XuAH9SPLb2EybNs0i97h9jRbX6NQ_gFLV33YQyN7-lVCr7Hp-RRlws8u63H5NP7d1frD-xic3a-Pr1gjTLlxLzhNS-88lCDrmxZlNB20IjCelFLLtuiEm1jVeWtVdpy3RqvhChFB9r4ulPH5NVBd5fitxlwckPABvrejxBndFIJbUyllcjoy3vodZxT_s2eMlaVZSX3lDxQTYqICTq3S2HwaXGCu31c7hCXy3G5m7icykcvbqXneoD238nffDKgDgDm1fgV0p33f2T_ADwToOQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2379355821</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass Versus Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass for Obesity: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Jia, Desheng ; Tan, Huiwen ; Faramand, Andrew ; Fang, Fang</creator><creatorcontrib>Jia, Desheng ; Tan, Huiwen ; Faramand, Andrew ; Fang, Fang</creatorcontrib><description>Introduction
We aim to compare the efficacy and safety outcomes of one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB).
Methods
We searched Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, and the Cochrane Library from inception to May 14, 2019, without language restrictions, for randomized clinical trials comparing OAGB with RYGB in obesity. Quality of included trials was assessed by Cochrane Collaboration’s tool; quality of evidence was evaluated by GRADE approach. The primary outcome was excess body mass index (BMI) loss at 2 years.
Results
We identified 206 reports; after exclusions, three trials with a total of 733 patients were eligible for analysis. Compared with RYGB, OAGB was associated with more excess BMI loss at 2 years (mean difference (MD), 10.22; 95% CI, 3.05 to17.40;
I
2
= 95%; low-quality evidence), with benefit seen in OAGB using non-obese patients (MD, 17.10; 95% CI, 15.76 to18.44;
P
for interaction = 0.007 ) and no benefit in OAGB using standard length of biliopancreatic limb (MD, 6.49; 95% CI, − 1.09 to 14.08). Moreover, individuals allocated to OAGB compared with RYGB had a higher remission rate of type 2 diabetes(T2D) (risk ratio (RR), 1.13; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.27;
I
2
= 0%). No statistically significant difference was found between the two surgical groups in adverse events.
Conclusion
OAGB is possibly associated with more body weight loss compared with RYGB in patients with obesity, despite the low quality of evidence caused by inconsistent of the effect of biliopancreatic limb length in OAGB group. This benefit appears to be confined to OAGB using the extended length of the biliopancreatic limb but not to OAGB using the standard length of the biliopancreatic limb, compared with RYBG. Additional large clinical studies are needed to assess the impact of limb length in OAGB.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0960-8923</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1708-0428</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s11695-019-04288-3</identifier><identifier>PMID: 31749109</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Springer US</publisher><subject>Anastomosis, Roux-en-Y ; Clinical trials ; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 - surgery ; Gastric Bypass ; Gastrointestinal surgery ; Humans ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Meta-analysis ; Obesity ; Obesity - surgery ; Obesity, Morbid - surgery ; Original Contributions ; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic ; Surgery ; Weight control ; Weight Loss</subject><ispartof>Obesity surgery, 2020-04, Vol.30 (4), p.1211-1218</ispartof><rights>Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019</rights><rights>Obesity Surgery is a copyright of Springer, (2019). All Rights Reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-a70b04a3aebe689545edfec149a1b202d481dc938a9936906d7a31151fe67abf3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-a70b04a3aebe689545edfec149a1b202d481dc938a9936906d7a31151fe67abf3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-8711-1920</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11695-019-04288-3$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11695-019-04288-3$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,778,782,27907,27908,41471,42540,51302</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31749109$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Jia, Desheng</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tan, Huiwen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Faramand, Andrew</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fang, Fang</creatorcontrib><title>One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass Versus Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass for Obesity: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials</title><title>Obesity surgery</title><addtitle>OBES SURG</addtitle><addtitle>Obes Surg</addtitle><description>Introduction
We aim to compare the efficacy and safety outcomes of one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB).
Methods
We searched Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, and the Cochrane Library from inception to May 14, 2019, without language restrictions, for randomized clinical trials comparing OAGB with RYGB in obesity. Quality of included trials was assessed by Cochrane Collaboration’s tool; quality of evidence was evaluated by GRADE approach. The primary outcome was excess body mass index (BMI) loss at 2 years.
Results
We identified 206 reports; after exclusions, three trials with a total of 733 patients were eligible for analysis. Compared with RYGB, OAGB was associated with more excess BMI loss at 2 years (mean difference (MD), 10.22; 95% CI, 3.05 to17.40;
I
2
= 95%; low-quality evidence), with benefit seen in OAGB using non-obese patients (MD, 17.10; 95% CI, 15.76 to18.44;
P
for interaction = 0.007 ) and no benefit in OAGB using standard length of biliopancreatic limb (MD, 6.49; 95% CI, − 1.09 to 14.08). Moreover, individuals allocated to OAGB compared with RYGB had a higher remission rate of type 2 diabetes(T2D) (risk ratio (RR), 1.13; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.27;
I
2
= 0%). No statistically significant difference was found between the two surgical groups in adverse events.
Conclusion
OAGB is possibly associated with more body weight loss compared with RYGB in patients with obesity, despite the low quality of evidence caused by inconsistent of the effect of biliopancreatic limb length in OAGB group. This benefit appears to be confined to OAGB using the extended length of the biliopancreatic limb but not to OAGB using the standard length of the biliopancreatic limb, compared with RYBG. Additional large clinical studies are needed to assess the impact of limb length in OAGB.</description><subject>Anastomosis, Roux-en-Y</subject><subject>Clinical trials</subject><subject>Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 - surgery</subject><subject>Gastric Bypass</subject><subject>Gastrointestinal surgery</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Meta-analysis</subject><subject>Obesity</subject><subject>Obesity - surgery</subject><subject>Obesity, Morbid - surgery</subject><subject>Original Contributions</subject><subject>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Weight control</subject><subject>Weight Loss</subject><issn>0960-8923</issn><issn>1708-0428</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kc9u1DAQxi0EokvhBTggS1y4uPhPYsfcygpKpVYrLQWJk-UkE-QqiRdPAoSX4JXxdguVeuA0M57ffJ-sj5Dngp8Izs1rFELbknFhGS9kVTH1gKyE4dXN-JCsuNWcVVaqI_IE8ZpzKbSUj8mREqawgtsV-b0ZgZ6OHqc4RAxIz3KbQkPfLjuPSD9DwhnpNs4_GYzsy_19FxPd1IBhWt5QTz8uOMHgpwxs4XuAH9SPLb2EybNs0i97h9jRbX6NQ_gFLV33YQyN7-lVCr7Hp-RRlws8u63H5NP7d1frD-xic3a-Pr1gjTLlxLzhNS-88lCDrmxZlNB20IjCelFLLtuiEm1jVeWtVdpy3RqvhChFB9r4ulPH5NVBd5fitxlwckPABvrejxBndFIJbUyllcjoy3vodZxT_s2eMlaVZSX3lDxQTYqICTq3S2HwaXGCu31c7hCXy3G5m7icykcvbqXneoD238nffDKgDgDm1fgV0p33f2T_ADwToOQ</recordid><startdate>20200401</startdate><enddate>20200401</enddate><creator>Jia, Desheng</creator><creator>Tan, Huiwen</creator><creator>Faramand, Andrew</creator><creator>Fang, Fang</creator><general>Springer US</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8711-1920</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20200401</creationdate><title>One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass Versus Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass for Obesity: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials</title><author>Jia, Desheng ; Tan, Huiwen ; Faramand, Andrew ; Fang, Fang</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-a70b04a3aebe689545edfec149a1b202d481dc938a9936906d7a31151fe67abf3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Anastomosis, Roux-en-Y</topic><topic>Clinical trials</topic><topic>Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 - surgery</topic><topic>Gastric Bypass</topic><topic>Gastrointestinal surgery</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Meta-analysis</topic><topic>Obesity</topic><topic>Obesity - surgery</topic><topic>Obesity, Morbid - surgery</topic><topic>Original Contributions</topic><topic>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Weight control</topic><topic>Weight Loss</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Jia, Desheng</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tan, Huiwen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Faramand, Andrew</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fang, Fang</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Obesity surgery</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Jia, Desheng</au><au>Tan, Huiwen</au><au>Faramand, Andrew</au><au>Fang, Fang</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass Versus Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass for Obesity: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials</atitle><jtitle>Obesity surgery</jtitle><stitle>OBES SURG</stitle><addtitle>Obes Surg</addtitle><date>2020-04-01</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>30</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>1211</spage><epage>1218</epage><pages>1211-1218</pages><issn>0960-8923</issn><eissn>1708-0428</eissn><abstract>Introduction
We aim to compare the efficacy and safety outcomes of one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB).
Methods
We searched Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, and the Cochrane Library from inception to May 14, 2019, without language restrictions, for randomized clinical trials comparing OAGB with RYGB in obesity. Quality of included trials was assessed by Cochrane Collaboration’s tool; quality of evidence was evaluated by GRADE approach. The primary outcome was excess body mass index (BMI) loss at 2 years.
Results
We identified 206 reports; after exclusions, three trials with a total of 733 patients were eligible for analysis. Compared with RYGB, OAGB was associated with more excess BMI loss at 2 years (mean difference (MD), 10.22; 95% CI, 3.05 to17.40;
I
2
= 95%; low-quality evidence), with benefit seen in OAGB using non-obese patients (MD, 17.10; 95% CI, 15.76 to18.44;
P
for interaction = 0.007 ) and no benefit in OAGB using standard length of biliopancreatic limb (MD, 6.49; 95% CI, − 1.09 to 14.08). Moreover, individuals allocated to OAGB compared with RYGB had a higher remission rate of type 2 diabetes(T2D) (risk ratio (RR), 1.13; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.27;
I
2
= 0%). No statistically significant difference was found between the two surgical groups in adverse events.
Conclusion
OAGB is possibly associated with more body weight loss compared with RYGB in patients with obesity, despite the low quality of evidence caused by inconsistent of the effect of biliopancreatic limb length in OAGB group. This benefit appears to be confined to OAGB using the extended length of the biliopancreatic limb but not to OAGB using the standard length of the biliopancreatic limb, compared with RYBG. Additional large clinical studies are needed to assess the impact of limb length in OAGB.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Springer US</pub><pmid>31749109</pmid><doi>10.1007/s11695-019-04288-3</doi><tpages>8</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8711-1920</orcidid></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0960-8923 |
ispartof | Obesity surgery, 2020-04, Vol.30 (4), p.1211-1218 |
issn | 0960-8923 1708-0428 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2316778631 |
source | MEDLINE; SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings |
subjects | Anastomosis, Roux-en-Y Clinical trials Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 - surgery Gastric Bypass Gastrointestinal surgery Humans Medicine Medicine & Public Health Meta-analysis Obesity Obesity - surgery Obesity, Morbid - surgery Original Contributions Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic Surgery Weight control Weight Loss |
title | One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass Versus Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass for Obesity: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-17T02%3A43%3A46IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=One%20Anastomosis%20Gastric%20Bypass%20Versus%20Roux-en-Y%20Gastric%20Bypass%20for%20Obesity:%20a%20Systematic%20Review%20and%20Meta-Analysis%20of%20Randomized%20Clinical%20Trials&rft.jtitle=Obesity%20surgery&rft.au=Jia,%20Desheng&rft.date=2020-04-01&rft.volume=30&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=1211&rft.epage=1218&rft.pages=1211-1218&rft.issn=0960-8923&rft.eissn=1708-0428&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s11695-019-04288-3&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2316778631%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2379355821&rft_id=info:pmid/31749109&rfr_iscdi=true |