Comparison of mid-term effectiveness and safety of one-anastomosis gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy in patients with super obesity (BMI\u2009≥\u200950 kg/m2)

Abstract

There is no consensus regarding the optimal bariatric procedure in patients with super obesity [body mass index (BMI)\u2009≥\u200950 kg/m2]. This study compared the outcomes of one-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) with those of sleeve gastrectomy (SG) in these patients. This retrospective study was conducted based on the prospectively maintained data in a cohort of 557 patients with super obesity, who underwent either SG (n\u2009=\u2009348) or OAGB with a 200-cm BPL (n\u2009=\u2009154) or a 160-cm BPL (n\u2009=\u200955) by the same surgical team from March 2013 to 2017. Patients undergoing OAGB had greater weight loss in comparison to those managed by SG during the first, second, and third years of follow-up. Comparing the OAGB and SG groups within 3 years after surgery, the total weight loss was 36.5 vs. 33.2% (P\u2009<\u20090.001) and the ΔBMI was 20.1 vs. 18.1 kg/m2 (P\u2009<\u20090.001), respectively. The resolution of diabetes mellitus, hypertension and dyslipidemia were similar after the two procedures. The operative time and length of hospital stay were longer in the OAGB group, and incidence of complications, requiring either readmission or reoperation, was significantly higher after OAGB, in comparison to SG. There was no significant difference in the postoperative weight loss results, resolution of comorbidities, or the incidence of complications between the OAGB-160 and OAGB-200 groups, with the exception of protein–calorie malnutrition requiring revision surgery, which was exclusively observed in the OAGB-200 group. Although OAGB provides superior mid-term weight loss, SG remains the first option for patients with super obesity, due to the safer surgical profile and comparable metabolic improvement.