Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 11, 2025
Single-Anastomosis Duodeno-Ileal Bypass with Sleeve Gastrectomy Model in Mice
Published on: February 10, 2023
Sleeve gastrectomy with one anastomosis bipartition versus one anastomosis gastric bypass: A pilot study
Xiaoguang Qin1,2, Zhongqi Mao1,2, Wei-Jei Lee1,3
1Department of Metabolic/Bariatric Medical Center, Suzhou BenQ Medical Center, The Affiliated BenQ Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Suzhou, Jiangsu Province, China.
Background:
One anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) is a new recognized metabolic surgery, but the problem that we cannot screen the excluded stomach is a troubling issue in China. The emergence of sleeve gastrectomy plus one anastomosis bipartition (SG + OAB) makes us see a hope to solve this problem.
Objectives:
By comparing the efficacy of the two surgical methods, to evaluate whether SG + OAB surgery can solve the dilemma faced by OAGB that the excluded stomach cannot be screened.
Methods:
A retrospective study to compare the patients who underwent OAGB and SG + OAB was conducted. The main outcome measures were (1) operation risk, (2) weight loss, and (3) diabetes remission at 6 months.
Results:
This study was conducted in the bariatric/metabolic surgical center. From November 2021 to February 2022, a total of 30 patients with obesity who received SG + OAB surgery were recruited. Another matched 60 patients undergoing OAGB were recruited as control group. There was no difference in preoperative age (32.15 ± 9.02 vs. 34.47 ± 7.22; p = .224), female ratio (83% vs. 85%; p = .837), and BMI (36.18 ± 5.30 vs. 34.68 ± 5.58; p = .217) between the two groups. OAGB had a shorter mean operation time (121.67 ± 20.41 vs. 143.50 ± 25.07 min; p < .001) and a lower intraoperative blood loss (21.92 ± 12.35 vs. 32.43 ± 22.01 mL; p = .005), but a longer postoperative flatus passage (2.13 ± 0.43 vs. 1.87 ± 0.43 days; p = .007) compared with the SG + OAB group. Two patients (6.7%) developed major surgical complication in SG + OAB group but no major complication developed in OAGB group. At 6 months after surgery, SG + OAB had a higher %total weight loss than OAGB (31.05 ± 3.12 vs. 28.14 ± 5.43%; p = .015), but diabetes remission rate was similarly high in both groups.
Conclusions:
SG + OAB operation had a non-inferior or even better weight loss than OAGB, with a similar glycemic control efficacy. However, the high complication rate of SG + OAB is the major drawback that needs attention.
