search for


A Safe and Efficacious Alternative to Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass for the Treatment of Morbid Obesity and Type 2 Diabetes - One Anastamosis / Mini Gastric Bypass
J Metab Bariatr Surg 2016;5(2):45-52
Published online December 30, 2016
© 2016 The Korean Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery.

Chun-Hai Tan1,2, Young Suk Park2, Dong-Wook Kim2, Yoontaek Lee2, Sang-Hoon Ahn2, Do-Joong Park2, Hyung-Ho Kim2, and Anton Cheng1

1Khoo Teck Puat Hospital, Singapore, Singapore,
2Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Korea
Correspondence to: Chun-Hai Tan, 90 Yishun Central, Singapore 768828, Singapore Khoo Teck Puat Hospital Tel: 65-66022207, Fax: 82-31-787-4078, E-mail:
Received November 30, 2016; Revised December 14, 2016; Accepted December 15, 2016.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License ( which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Roux-en-y gastric bypass (RYGB) is currently used to treat obesity and metabolic syndrome. It is however technically challenging with a steep learning curve and long operating times. Laparoscopitc mini-gastric bypass (LMGB) is another surgical method that is acclaimed to achieve similar efficacy and yet safe with acceptable complication rates. We reviewed current literature on LMGB on its efficacy and safety profile. Comprehensive search of available literature using a combination of key words was performed, looking out for efficacy and safety end points. Efficacy end points include excess weight loss, change in body mass index (BMI), resolution of metabolic syndrome or T2DM remission. Safety end points include mortality and morbidity rates, short and long term complications. 18 studies were selected with a total of 9392 patients. Follow up range was from 1 year to 6 years with majority of studies achieving 57%-92% excess weight loss (%EWL) within 1 year. Remission of T2DM rates were mostly more than 84%. Several studies reported better %EWL and T2DM remission when compared to SG and RYGB. Overall mortality rate was 0.152%. Morbidity rates vary from 2.7%-12.5%. Some studies reported lower mortality and complication rates in LMGB when compared to SG and RYGB. In summary, MGB is a safe and effective metabolic-bariatric procedure in treating morbid obesity and T2DM. It should be considered an alternative to standard RYGB. Risk of bile reflux, marginal ulcer and anemia needs to be explained to the patient when counselling for such procedure.

Keywords : Single anastamosis bypass, Gastric bypass, Roux-en-y gastric bypass, Mini gastric bypass, One anastamosis bypass

Epidemic of morbid obesity is rapidly increasing in the world over the past two decades. Obesity is a significant risk which contributes to increased morbidity and mortality from cardiovascular disease, diabetes, osteoarthritis and sleep apnoea. It is a key component of metabolic syndrome. Bariatric-metabolic surgery has been proven to be more effective than conventional medical treatment in treating obesity and keeping metabolic syndrome and Type 2 Diabetes (T2DM) in remission [1]. Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) has been shown to be effective in achieving significant and durable long term weight loss as well as improvement in metabolic syndrome and causing remission in T2DM [2-5]. However, it is technically challenging with a steep learning curve associated with longer operating times and high perioperative morbidity and complications [6-8]. Laparoscopic mini-gastric bypass (LMGB) is an emerging surgical method, first reported by Rutledge [9] was proposed as a simple, safe and efficacious for the treatment of morbid obesity. However, there are concerns about biliary reflux, risk of malignancy, marginal ulcer and reflux esophagitis after LMGB [10-11]. Thousands of LMGB have been performed and efficacy of LMGB on weight loss and remission of T2DM have been reported [12-14]. We provide a critical evaluation of LMGB on its weight loss efficacy and remission of T2DM together with the safety profile and complications associated with this operation.


This review was performed by 1 author (CT) who performed the selection of studies and abstracted data. Eligible studies were sought in PubMed, Medline, Cochrane library, Embase and Google scholar for key words “mini gastric bypass”, “one anastomosis gastric bypass”, “mason loop gastric bypass”, “omega loop gastric bypass”, “loop gastric bypass” or “single anastomosis gastric bypass”. End of search date was 30th October 2016. Eligible articles included single or multi-centered, randomized or non-randomized trials providing results of weight loss, excess weight loss, change in body mass index (BMI), excess BMI loss and resolution of metabolic syndrome or T2DM remission. Results for safety profile of LMGB including complications were also looked at. Only full length articles in English language were considered. Some articles were obtained from the references of these articles. Case reports and studies on children were excluded. The abstracts were reviewed and 18 articles were selected for closer analysis. Table 1 summarize efficacy of LMGB. Extraction of data comprised of first author’s name, year of publication, study design, sample size, follow up years, percentage follow up, mean age, percentage of patients with T2DM, pre-operative BMI, post-operative BMI, excess weight loss (EWL), excess BMI loss (EBMIL), weight loss, and percentage of patients with T2DM resolution. Data extraction for safety profile and complications include 30 day mortality, 30 day morbidity, conversion rate, late complications, mean operating time, rate of leaks, major bleeding, marginal ulcer, bile reflux, anaemia and any additional remarks.

Efficacy of laparoscopic mini-gastric bypass

Author (year of publication)Study designSample sizeFollow up years (%)Mean age% patients with T2DMPre-op BMIPost op BMIEWL/EBMILWL, remarks
Lee et al. (2005) [13]Prospective RCT (RYGB vs MGB)402 (100%)30.7±8.455% metabolic syndrome44.8±8.828.7 (1 year) 28.3 (2 years)64.9% EWL (1 year) 64.4% EWL (2 years)100% resolution of metabolic syndrome
Wang et al. (2005) [15]Retrospective cohort4233 (13.8% at 1 year, 7.3% at 2 years)30.8±9.318.7%44.2±7.029.2 (1 year) 28.4 (2 years) 28.8 (3 years)69% (1 year) 72% (2 years) 71% (3 years)T2DM remission 100%
Rutledge and Walsh (2005) [12]Retrospective Cohort study2,4105 (68%)3983%46±729 (12 months)80% (1 year)59 kg (1 year)
Carbajo et al. (2005) [16]Retrospective cohort2092 years (NA)41NA48NA75% EWL (1 year) 80% EWL (18 months)No comments on resolution of T2DM
Peraglie (2008) [17]Retrospective Cohort study (super super obese)162 (12.5%)40NA62.4NA57% (1 year) 65% (2 years)63 kg (1 year) 72 kg (2 years) T2DM remission not reported
Piazza et al. (2011) [18]Retrospective cohort1972 (96%)37.9NA52.939.4 (1 year) 30.3 (2 years) 28.3 (3 years)65% EWL (1 year) 80% EWL (2 years)T2DM remission 90%
Noun et al. (2012) [19]Retrospective cohort1,0005 (70%)33.2±10.219%42.5±6.328.4 (60 months)72.5% EWL (18 months) 68.6% EWL (60 months)32.85% TWL (60 months)
Lee et al. (2012) [20]Retrospective cohort study (compare to RYGB)1,1635.6 (56%)32.3±9.149.3% metabolic syndrome41±6.127.7 (5 years)72.9% EWL (5 years)>80% resolution of metabolic syndrome
Milone et al. (2013) [21]Retrospective cohort (compared SG vs MGB)161 (100%)39.3100%45.8±5.0NABMI −24.2 (1 year)T2DM remission 87.5% (1 year)
Musella et al. (2014) [22]Retrospective cohort9745 (84%)39.422.9%48±4.5828 (60 months)70% EWL (1 year) 77% EWL (5 years)T2DM Remission 84.4%
Kular et al. (2014) [23]Retrospective cohort (Indian subcontinent)1,0546 (84%)38.4±9.664%43.2±7.426.2 (1 year) 25.8 (3 years) 26.2 (6 years)85% EWL (1 year) 88% EWL (3 years) 85% EWL (6 years)T2DM Remission 93.2%
Disse et al. (2014) [24]Matched retrospective cohort (compared OLB to RYGB)201 year (100%)49.540%40.128.8 (6 months) 32.3 (12 months)76.3% EBMIL (6 months) 89.0% EBMIL (1 year)T2DM Remission 62.5% at 6 months
Bruzzi et al. (2015) [25]Retrospective cohort1755 year (72%)50±1022%47±831±671.5 %EBMIL44 kg (5 years) T2DM Remission 82% at 5 years
Guenzi et al. (2015) [26]Retrospective cohort80426 months (NA)49±1112.4%47±93576% (3 years)T2DM 88% complete remission at 2 years
Peraglie (2016) [27]Retrospective cohort (age >60)886 (42%)6445%4367% (1 year) 70% (2 years) 72% (6 years)T2DM Remission 84%
Jammu and Sharma (2016) [28]Retrospective cohort (compare MGB/SG/ RYGB)47353.5 months (52%)46.575.9%56.5-92.2% EWLT2DM remission 95.1%. EWL% and resolution of comorbidities better in MGB.
Kansou et al. (2016) [29]Retrospective cohort (compared MGB to sleeve)1611 year (88.4%)41.2±11.319.9%42.8±5.026.3 (1 year)79.3% EWL (1 year)TWL 38.2±8.4% (1 year), T2DM remission 92.6%. LMGB better TWL than sleeve
Plamper et al. (2016) [30]Retrospective cohort (compared MGB with sleeve in super obese)1691 year (90.8%)43.2±11.141.4%54.1±6.634.9±4.8 (1 year)66.2% EWL (1 year)%EWL better in MGB than sleeve


1. Operative technique and standardization of name

The original technique was first described by Rutledge [9]. After division of the stomach at the junction of the body and antrum, the long gastric tube is created parallel to the lesser curve with a 36F bougie in place. Width of the gastric tube approximates 2 cm. A loop of jejenum at 200 cm distal to the ligament of Treitz is selected for an end to side stapled anastomosis before closure of the enterostomy. Lee [31] tailored the length of the bilio-pancreatic (BP) limb according to BMI, with a longer BP limb resulting in better BMI reduction in the moderate and high BMI group of patients. Garcia-Caballero [32] described a side to side gastro-jejunal anastomosis and hitching up the afferent limb to the lateral portion of gastric tube in an attempt to reduce bilio-panreatic secretions refluxing into the gastric tube, at the same time avoiding gastric pouch twist. Their group named it the One-Anastamosis Gastric bypass (OAGB), also known as BAGUA—Bypass Gástrico de Una Anastomosis, in Spanish.

2. Efficacy–weight loss and resolution of T2DM

18 studies were selected with a total of 9392 patients summarized in Table 1. In the only randomized control trial comparing LRYGB and LMGB, Lee [13] randomized 80 patients into 2 arms, 40 patients in each arm. All of them were followed up for 2 years. LMGB patients’ mean BMI dropped from 44.8 kg/m2 to 28.7 kg/m2 within 1 year and an EWL of 64.9% at 1 year and 64.4% at 2 years. 55% of these patients had metabolic syndrome and all of them were resolved after the procedure. There was no significant difference in metabolic resolution rates when compared to RYGB.

Remaining studies were retrospective cohort studies, some comparing MGB to RYGB [20,24,28] while others compared MGB to sleeve gastrectomy (SG) [21,28-30]. Peraglie studied a specific subset of patients: the super super obese cohort [17] and in another study, those aged more than 60 years old [27].

Patients were followed up from 1 year to 6 years with a follow up rate ranging from 12.5%-100%. Weight loss in MGB was effective post-operatively, achieving 57-92% EWL within 1 year and maintaining it up to 6 years [27]. T2DM remission rates were mostly more than 84% [18,20-23,26-29] except Dessi [24] who reported a remission rate of 62.5% at 6 months. In more recent publication, Jammu [28] reported the highest %EWL in MGB, followed by RYGB and LSG (92.2%, 72.3%, and 53.6 %, respectively; P<0.05). In the same study, for T2DM, 94.4 % of patients stopped T2DM medications a few weeks after MGB, while 76.2% and 59.4% of diabetic patients had resolution of T2DM after RYGB and SG, respectively (P<0.05). Kansou [29] and Plamper [30] both reported superior weight loss in MGB when compared to SG at 1 year.

3. Safety–complications of laparoscopic mini-gastric bypass

Table 2 details the summary of complications in the same studies. 9 studies reported 0% mortality in their series. 2 studies did not report their mortality rate. [21,26] In the remaining studies, mortality rate ranged 0.08%-0.9%. Not including the 2 studies where mortality was not reported, overall mortality rate was 0.152%. Morbidity rates vary from 2.7%-12.5%, conversion rates 0.17%-2.5%, mean operating time 37.5 mins to 148 mins. Complications of leaks ranged 0.1%-5.1%, major bleeding 0.2%-5% and bile reflux 0.4%-1.6%. In Jammu’s series [28], mortality rates in MGB was lowest at 0%, compared to 2.1% in SG and 0.3% in RYGB; leak rate was also lowest when compared to SG and RYGB, 0% versus 1.5% and 0.3% respectively. Plamper [30] showed that the MGB had 0% 30-day mortality versus 0.8% in SG, and a lower overall perioperative complication rate (3.0% vs 9.3%, P=0.449). Iron deficiency anemia rates range from 0.1%-9.7%. Lee [20] found that hemoglobin levels were lower in LMGB compared to LRYGB.

Safety profile of laparoscopic mini gastric bypass

Author (publication year)30 day mortality (%)30 day morbidity (%)Conversion Rate (%)Late complications (%)Mean operating time (mins)Leaks (%)Major bleeding (%)Marginal ulcer (%)Bile Reflux (%)Anaemia (%)Remarks
Lee et al. (2005) [13]07.5%2.5% (1 patient)7.5%148NANA5.0%NANA
Wang et al. (2005) [15]0.474.3017.7950.70.78.0NA9.7Revision 1.7%
Rutledge and Walsh (2005) [12] 1.1%, Revision rate 1%
Carbajo et al. (2005) [16]0.9%3.7%0.9%NA931.90.9%NANA0.1%
Peraglie et al. (2008) [17]012.5% (2 patients)0NA78NA6.2%NANANA
Piazza et al. (2011) [18]0.5%5.6%NANA120NA31.5NANA
Noun et al. (2012) [19]02.704.7890.55.60.4NA
Lee et al. (2012) [20]0.178.5%0.1NA115. 2.8%
Milone et al. (2013) [21]NANANANANANANANANANA
Musella et al. (2014) [22]
Kular et al. (2014) [23]0.185.909%520. weight loss 0.1%, Revision 0.2%
Disse et al. (2014) [24]010% (2 patients)010% (2 patients)105 (shorter than RYGB)05% (1 patient, port site bleeding)5% (1 patient, smoiker0NA10% GERD
Bruzzi et al. (2015) [25]03 month morbidity, intractable converted to RYGB3.2
Guenzi et al. (2015) [26]NANANA7.5NA2.43.64.9NANANo difference in complication rates between diabetics and non diabetics
Peraglie (2016) [27]0NA0NA71NANANANANAOverall complication 4.5% (minor) Readmission 1.2%
Jammu and Sharma (2016) [28]0NANANA57.500. hypoalbumiemia, MGB 0% leak compared to sleeve 1.4%, RYGB 0.3%
Kansou et al. (2016) [29]0NA0NANA5.11.47.6NANAStenosis 16.9%
Plamper et al. (2016) [30]03.0NANA81.70.61.2NANANAMGB lower 30 day complication rate than SG

Excessive weight loss was not defined in several of the reviewed studies, it is usually assumed to be %EWL of >100%. Rutledge [12] reported malnutrition in 1.1% of his patients that required revision surgery. Kular [23] reported a revision rate of 0.2% as well as 0.1% of patients having too much weight loss. Wang [15] reported his revision rate of 1.7%. There was no significant difference in revision rates between MGB and RYGB in Lee’s [20] study.


This review of the safety and efficacy of MGB shows that this procedure can be performed within a shorter operating time, low mortality and morbidity, at the same time effective in the treatment of morbid obesity, metabolic syndrome and T2DM. Efficacy and safety of LMGB were not inferior to SG or RYGB, surgeons in the community raised criticisms about bile reflux. They were also concerned about symptomatic gastritis and oesophagitis as what occurred in the old Mason’s loop gastric bypass [11]. Johnson et al. [10] reported a multicenter review of complications and conversions to RYGB after LMGB.

A total of 18 studies were summarized in this article with an analysis of 9392 patients. It includes a prospective randomized control trial [13] and 6 studies comparing MGB with accepted mainstream bariatric-metabolic procedure; SG and/or RYGB. [20-21,24,28-30]. Since the early publications around 2001, there was a paucity of MGB publication until recently However in recent years; there have been multiple publications around the world, including comparative studies and systemic reviews. [33-36]

LMGB is effective in achieving weight loss; BMI reduction and EWL range 57-92%, for up to 6 years according to the reviewed literature. When compared to RYGB, Lee [13] found EWL to be comparable in 1 study but far more superior to RYGB in another of his study [20]. Jammu [28] showed that MGB compared to SG and RYGB was not just superior in EWL, but also in resolution of comorbidities as well. Kansou [29] confirmed similar results when MGB was compared to SG. Proponents of LMGB favor this procedure as they claim it is safer and more effective than the standard RYGB [20,23]. Our review concurred with their views, with an overall mortality rate of 0.152% and morbidity rates from 2.7%-12.5%. Complications of leaks ranged 0.1%- 5.1%, major bleeding 0.2%-5% and bile reflux 0.4%-1.6%.

Limitations of this review were that there was only 1 randomized control trial. Remaining studies were retrospective cohort studies. Some studies follow up were short and often incomplete. Reports between studies varied greatly, which made analysis of comparisons difficult. Late adverse outcomes were poorly reported in many studies. More randomized controlled trials and prospective studies with longer follow up will improve the understanding and durability of this procedure.


In summary, MGB is a safe and effective metabolic-bariatric procedure in treating morbid obesity and T2DM when compared to accepted bariatric procedures such as SG and RYGB. It should be considered an alternative to standard RYGB given that it has shorter operating time, fewer short and long term complications, better EWL and more effective in the resolution of T2DM. The risk of bile reflux, marginal ulcer and iron deficiency anemia needs to be kept in mind and explained to the patient when counselling for such a procedure. Further prospective studies or randomized control trials need to be conducted with adequate long term follow will improve current literature on this procedure.


No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

  1. Mingrone G, Panunzi S, and De Gaetano A et al. Bariatric-metabolic surgery versus conventional medical treatment in obese patients with type 2 diabetes: 5 year follow-up of an open-label, single-centre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2015;386:964-73.
  2. Wittgrove AC, and Clark GW. Laparoscopic gastric bypass, Roux- en-Y- 500 patients: technique and results, with 3-60 month follow-up. Obes Surg 2000;10:233-9.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  3. Higa KD, Boone KB, Ho T, and Davies OG. Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass for morbid obesity. Arch Surg 2000;135:1029-33.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  4. Schauer PR, Ikramuddin S, Gourash W, Ramanathan R, and Luketich J. Outcomes after laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass for morbid obesity. Ann Surg 2000;232:515-29.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  5. DeMaria EJ, Sugerman HJ, Kellum JM, Meador JG, and Wolfe LG. Results of 281 consecutive total laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypasses to treat morbid obesity. Ann Surg 2002;235:640-5.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  6. Schauer P, Ikramuddin S, Hamad G, and Gourash W. The learning curve for laparoscopic Roux-en-y gastric bypass is 100 cases. Surg Endosc 2003;17:212-5.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  7. Reddy RM, Riker A, Marra D, Thomas R, and Brems JJ. Open Roux-en-Y gastric bypass for the morbidly obese in the era of laparoscopy. Am J Surg 2002;184:611-6.
  8. Westling A, and Gustavsson S. Laparoscopic vs open Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a prospective, randomized trial. Obes Surg 2001;11:284-92.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  9. Rutledge R. The mini-gastric bypass: experience with the first 1,274 cases. Obes Surg 2001;11:276-80.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  10. Johnson WH, Fernanadez AZ, and Farrell TM et al. Surgical revision of loop (“mini”) gastric bypass procedure: multicenter review of complications and conversions to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Surg Obes Relat Dis 2007;3:37-41.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  11. Fisher BL, Buchwald H, and Clark W et al. Mini-gastric bypass controversy. Obes Surg 2001;11:773-7.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  12. Rutledge R, and Walsh TR. Continued excellent results with the mini-gastric bypass: six-year study in 2,410 patients. Obes Surg 2005;15:1304-8.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  13. Lee WJ, Yu PJ, Wang W, Chen TC, Wei PL, and Huang MT. Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y versus mini-gastric bypass for the treatment of morbid obesity: a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial. Ann Surg 2005;242:20-8.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  14. Lee WJ, Wang W, Lee YC, Huang MT, Ser KH, and Chen JC. Effect of laparoscopic mini-gastric bypass for type 2 diabetes mellitus: comparison of BMI>35 and<35 kg/m2. J Gastrointest Surg 2008;12:945-52.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  15. Wang W, Wei PL, Lee YC, Huang MT, Chiu CC, and Lee WJ. Short-term results of laparoscopic mini-gastric bypass. Obes Surg 2005;15:648-54.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  16. Carbajo M, García-Caballero M, Toledano M, Osorio D, García-Lanza C, and Carmona JA. One-anastomosis gastric bypass by laparoscopy: results of the first 209 patients. Obes Surg 2005;15:398-404.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  17. Peraglie C. Laparoscopic mini-gastric bypass (LMGB) in the super-super obese: outcomes in 16 patients. Obes Surg 2008;18:1126-9.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  18. Piazza L, Ferrara F, and Leanza S et al. Laparoscopic mini-gastric bypass: short-term single-institute experience. Updates Surg 2011;63:239-42.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  19. Noun R, Skaff J, Riachi E, Daher R, Antoun NA, and Nasr M. One thousand consecutive mini-gastric bypass: short- and long-term outcome. Obes Surg 2012;22:697-703.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  20. Lee WJ, Ser KH, Lee YC, Tsou JJ, Chen SC, and Chen JC. Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y vs. mini-gastric bypass for the treatment of morbid obesity: a 10-year experience. Obes Surg 2012;22:1827-34.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  21. Milone M, Di Minno MN, and Leongito M et al. Bariatric surgery and diabetes remission: sleeve gastrectomy or mini-gastric bypass?. World J Gastroenterol 2013;19:6590-7.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  22. Musella M, Susa A, and Greco F et al. The laparoscopic mini-gastric bypass: the Italian experience: outcomes from 974 consecutive cases in a multicenter review. Surg Endosc 2014;28:156-63.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  23. Kular KS, Manchanda N, and Rutledge R. A 6-year experience with 1,054 mini-gastric bypasses-first study from Indian subcontinent. Obes Surg 2014;24:1430-5.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  24. Disse E, Pasquer A, Espalieu P, Poncet G, Gouillat C, and Robert M. Greater weight loss with the omega loop bypass compared to the Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a comparative study. Obes Surg 2014;24:841-6.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  25. Bruzzi M, Rau C, Voron T, Guenzi M, Berger A, and Chevallier JM. Single anastomosis or mini-gastric bypass: long term results and quality of life after a 5-year follow up. Surg Obes Relat Dis 2015;11:321-6.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  26. Guenzi M, Arman G, and Rau C et al. Remission of type 2 diabetes after omega loop gastric bypass for morbid obesity. Surg Endosc 2015;29:2669-74.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  27. Peraglie C. Laparoscopic mini-gastric bypass in patients age 60 and older. Surg Endosc 2016;30:38-43.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  28. Jammu GS, and Sharma R. A 7-year clinical audit of 1107 cases comparing sleeve gastrectomy, Roux-En-Y gastric bypass, and mini-gastric bypass, to determine an effective and safe bariatric and metabolic procedure. Obes Surg 2016;26:926-32.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  29. Kansou G, Lechaux D, and Delarue J et al. Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy versus laparoscopic mini gastric bypass: one year outcomes. Int J Surg 2016;33:18-22.
  30. Plamper A, Lingohr P, Nadal J, and Rheinwalt KP. Comparison of mini-gastric bypass with sleeve gastrectomy in a mainly super-obese patient group: first results. Surg Endosc 2016.
  31. Lee WJ, Wang W, Lee YC, Huang MT, Ser KH, and Chen JC. Laparoscopic mini-gastric bypass: experience with tailored bypass limb according to body weight. Obes Surg 2008;18:294-9.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  32. García-Caballero M, and Carbajo M. One anastomosis gastric bypass: a simple, safe and efficient surgical procedure for treating morbid obesity. Nutr Hosp 2004;19:372-5.
  33. Mahawar KK, Jennings N, Brown J, Gupta A, Balupuri S, and Small PK. “Mini” gastric bypass: systematic review of a controversial procedure. Obes Surg 2013;23:1890-8.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  34. Georgiadou D, Sergentanis TN, Nixon A, Diamantis T, Tsigris C, and Psaltopoulou T. Efficacy and safety of laparoscopic mini gastric bypass. A systematic review. Surg Obes Relat Dis 2014;10:984-91.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  35. Mahawar KK, Carr WR, Balupuri S, and Small PK. Controversy surrounding ‘mini’ gastric bypass. Obes Surg 2014;24:324-33.
  36. Victorzon M. Single-anastomosis gastric bypass: better, faster, and safer?. Scand J Surg 2015;104:48-53.
    Pubmed CrossRef

December 2018, 7 (2)
Full Text(PDF) Free

Social Network Service

Cited By Articles
  • CrossRef (0)