Loading
Life sciences · Journal article
Langenbeck S Archives of Surgery · September 14, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Journal article.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Abstract Background Revisional bariatric surgery is increasingly performed due to inadequate weight loss, weight regain, or complications following primary bariatric procedures. One anastomotic gastric bypass (OAGB) and single-anastomosis duodeno-ileal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy (SADI-S) are commonly used revisional options, yet comparative data on metabolic, nutritional, and quality-of-life outcomes remain limited. Objective To compare metabolic, nutritional, perioperative, and quality-of-life outcomes between revisional OAGB and SADI-S. Methods A retrospective comparative cohort study was conducted at a tertiary bariatric center between 2020 and 2025. Adult patients undergoing revisional OAGB or SADI-S after sleeve gastrectomy with recurrent obesity were included. Outcomes included weight loss, metabolic and nutritional parameters, perioperative outcomes, complications, and quality of life assessed using BAROS and SF-BARI questionnaires. A sensitivity analysis including only patients with weight regain was performed. Adjustment for baseline nutritional values was performed using ANCOVA. Results Forty-four patients were included (22 OAGB, 22 SADI-S). At one year, no statistically significant differences in weight loss were observed between groups (EWL 43% vs. 37%, p > 0.9; TWL 18% vs. 15%, p = 0.9). SADI-S demonstrated superior lipid profile improvement, including lower total cholesterol (119 vs. 153 mg/dL, p = 0.005) and LDL levels (65 vs. 85 mg/dL, p = 0.032). Vitamin B12 levels were higher after SADI-S (475 vs. 330 pg/mL, p = 0.015), while no statistically significant between-group differences were observed in the other nutritional parameters. Operative time was shorter for OAGB (90 vs. 109 min, p = 0.019). No statistically significant between-group differences were observed in quality-of life scores. Conclusion In this small retrospective cohort, no statistically significant differences were detected between revisional OAGB and SADI-S regarding short-term weight-loss or quality-of-life outcomes. SADI-S was associated with greater improvement in lipid profile, whereas OAGB demonstrated a trend toward a more favorable nutritional profile. However, the study was not powered to establish equivalence between procedures, and these findings should be considered exploratory and hypothesis-generating.