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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Obesity surgery 2020-04, Vol.30 (4), p.1211-1218
Hauptverfasser: Jia, Desheng, Tan, Huiwen, Faramand, Andrew, Fang, Fang
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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health &amp; 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