Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 May 24;13(11):3075.
doi: 10.3390/jcm13113075.

Marginal Ulcer Perforation after One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass: Surgical Treatment and Two-Year Outcomes

Affiliations

Marginal Ulcer Perforation after One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass: Surgical Treatment and Two-Year Outcomes

Adam Abu-Abeid et al. J Clin Med. .

Abstract

Background: Marginal ulcer (MU) perforation is a chronic complication after One-anastomosis Gastric Bypass (OAGB). This study's purpose was to analyze patients undergoing OAGB revision due to MU perforation and describe the two-year outcomes. Methods: A retrospective analysis of a database in a single-tertiary hospital. All patients undergoing surgical revision due to MU perforation were included. Results: During the study period, 22 patients underwent OAGB revision due to MU perforation. The rate of MU perforation was 0.98%. The median age was 48 years and there were 13 men (59%). The median time from OAGB to MU perforation was 19 months with a median total weight loss of 31.5%. Nine patients (41%) were smokers. Omental patch (±primary closure) was performed in 19 patients (86%) and three patients (14%) underwent conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). At a median follow-up of 48 months, three patients (14%) had recurrent MU diagnosis, of which one had a recurrent MU perforation. Four patients (18%) underwent conversion to RYGB during follow-up. Conclusions: MU perforation is a chronic complication after OAGB. In this cohort, most patients were men and likely to be smokers. Omental patch was effective in most cases. Recurrent MU rates at two years follow-up were acceptable.

Keywords: complications; marginal ulcer; one anastomosis gastric bypass; perforation; surgical revision.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Operative findings in patients with MU perforation *.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Angrisani L., Santonicola A., Iovino P., Palma R., Kow L., Prager G., Ramos A., Shikora S., The Collaborative Study Group for the IFSO Worldwide Survey IFSO Worldwide Survey 2020–2021: Current Trends for Bariatric and Metabolic Procedures. Obes. Surg. 2024;34:1075–1085. doi: 10.1007/s11695-024-07118-3. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Jung J.J., Park A.K., Hutter M.M. The United States Experience with One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass at MBSAQIP-Accredited Centers. Obes. Surg. 2022;32:3239–3247. doi: 10.1007/s11695-022-06002-2. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Alkhalifah N., Lee W.J., Hai T.C., Ser K.H., Chen J.C., Wu C.C. 15-year experience of laparoscopic single anastomosis (mini-) gastric bypass: Comparison with other bariatric procedures. Surg. Endosc. 2018;32:3024–3031. doi: 10.1007/s00464-017-6011-1. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Sakran N., Sherf-Dagan S., Hod K., Kaplan U., Azaria B., Raziel A., Assuta Bariatric Surgeons C. One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass in 6722 Patients: Early Outcomes from a Private Hospital Registry. J. Clin. Med. 2023;12:6872. doi: 10.3390/jcm12216872. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Musella M., Susa A., Manno E., De Luca M., Greco F., Raffaelli M., Cristiano S., Milone M., Bianco P., Vilardi A., et al. Complications following the Mini/One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass (MGB/OAGB): A Multi-institutional Survey on 2678 Patients with a Mid-term (5 Years) Follow-up. Obes. Surg. 2017;27:2956–2967. doi: 10.1007/s11695-017-2726-2. - DOI - PubMed