Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 384

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 72 of the 72 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Laparoscopic One-Anastomosis Gastric Bypass: Technique, Results, and Long-Term Follow-Up in 1200 Patients

Open access
Carbajo, Miguel A., Luque-de-León, Enrique, Jiménez, José M., Ortiz-de-Solórzano, Javier, Pérez-Miranda, Manuel, Castro-Alija, María J.·2017·Obesity Surgery

Abstract

Excellent results have been reported with mini-gastric bypass. We adopted and modified the one-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) concept. Herein is our approach, results, and long-term follow-up (FU). Initial 1200 patients submitted to laparoscopic OAGB between 2002 and 2008 were analyzed after a 6–12-year FU. Mean age was 43 years (12–74) and body mass index (BMI) 46 kg/m 2 (33–86). There were 697 (58 %) without previous or simultaneous abdominal operations, 273 (23 %) with previous, 203 (17 %) with simultaneous, and 27 (2 %) performed as revisions. Mean operating time (min) was as follows: (a) primary procedure, 86 (45–180); (b) with other operations, 112 (95–230); and (c) revisions, 180 (130–240). Intraoperative complications led to 4 (0.3 %) conversions. Complications prompted operations in 16 (1.3 %) and were solved conservatively in 12 (1 %). Long-term complications occurred in 12 (1 %). There were 2 (0.16 %) deaths. Thirty-day and late readmission rates were 0.8 and 1 %. Cumulative FU was 87 and 70 % at 6 and 12 years. The highest mean percent excess weight loss was 88 % (at 2 years), then 77 and 70 %, 6 and 12 years postoperatively. Mean BMI (kg/m 2 ) decreased from 46 to 26.6 and was 28.5 and 29.9 at those time frames. Remission or improvement of comorbidities was achieved in most patients. The quality of life index was satisfactory in all parameters from 6 months onwards. Laparoscopic OAGB is safe and effective. It reduces difficulty, operating time, and early and late complications of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Long-term weight loss, resolution of comorbidities, and degree of satisfaction are similar to results obtained with more aggressive and complex techniques. It is currently a robust and powerful alternative in bariatric surgery.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11695-016-2428-1

Cites

72 of 72 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 72 references

Cited by

See all 384

Metadata

Authors
Carbajo, M. A., Luque-de-León, E., Jiménez, J. M., Ortiz-de-Solórzano, J., Pérez-Miranda, M., & Castro-Alija, M. J.
Venue
Obesity Surgery
Published
2016-10-25
Volume
27
Issue
5
Pages
1153-1167
ISSN
  • 0960-8923 (ISSN-L)
  • 1708-0428
OpenAlex
W2536270146
Cited by
384
References
72
FWCI
31.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Laparoscopic One-Anastomosis Gastric Bypass: Technique, Results, and Long-Term Follow-Up in 1200 Patients. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s11695-016-2428-1
The paper
Carbajo, M. A., Luque-de-León, E., Jiménez, J. M., Ortiz-de-Solórzano, J., Pérez-Miranda, M., & Castro-Alija, M. J. (2017). Laparoscopic One-Anastomosis Gastric Bypass: Technique, Results, and Long-Term Follow-Up in 1200 Patients. Obesity Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-016-2428-1

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.