Scholarlink

<p>Single anastomosis sleeve ileal (SASI) bypass combines sleeve gastrectomy with intestinal bipartition to promote weight loss and metabolic improvement. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing SASI with sleeve gastrectomy (1 RCT and 4 non-randomized comparative studies (NRCTs)), one-anastomosis gastric bypass (2 RCTs, 4 NRCTs), and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (2 NRCTs), regarding weight loss, metabolic and nutritional outcomes, and adverse effects. Certainty of evidence was assessed with GRADE for 1-year outcomes. Twenty-six studies (1603 patients) were included, mostly reporting 12-month results. Pooled single-arm analysis from 11 studies showed mean total weight loss of 35.9&#xa0;kg (95% CI 33.3–38.5). The certainty of evidence ranged from low to very low, limiting confidence in the results and emphasizing the need for high-quality RCTs.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Weight Loss, Comorbidity, and Complications After Single-anastomosis Sleeve Ileal Bypass (SASI): A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年6月24日

查看全文
  • Helene Marie Haug,
  • Hilde Risstad,
  • Rolf Eikeland Hagen,
  • Tom Mala,
  • Jon Adalsteinn Kristinsson,
  • Torgeir Thorson Søvik

摘要

Single anastomosis sleeve ileal (SASI) bypass combines sleeve gastrectomy with intestinal bipartition to promote weight loss and metabolic improvement. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing SASI with sleeve gastrectomy (1 RCT and 4 non-randomized comparative studies (NRCTs)), one-anastomosis gastric bypass (2 RCTs, 4 NRCTs), and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (2 NRCTs), regarding weight loss, metabolic and nutritional outcomes, and adverse effects. Certainty of evidence was assessed with GRADE for 1-year outcomes. Twenty-six studies (1603 patients) were included, mostly reporting 12-month results. Pooled single-arm analysis from 11 studies showed mean total weight loss of 35.9 kg (95% CI 33.3–38.5). The certainty of evidence ranged from low to very low, limiting confidence in the results and emphasizing the need for high-quality RCTs.