Background: One-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB-MGB) is currently the third performed primary bariatric surgical procedure worldwide. However, the procedure is hampered by numerous controversies and there is considerable variability in surgical technique, patient selection, and pre- and postoperative care among the surgeons performing this procedure. This paper reports the results of a modified Delphi consensus study organized by the International Federation for Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders (IFSO). Methods: Fifty-two internationally recognized bariatric experts from 28 countries convened for voting on 90 consensus statements over two rounds to identify those on which consensus could be reached. Inter-voter agreement of ≥ 70% was considered consensus, with voting participation ≥ 80% considered a robust vote. Results: At least 70% consensus was achieved for 65 of the 90 questions (72.2% of the items), 61 during the first round of voting and an additional four in the second round. Where consensus was reached on a binary agree/disagree or yes/no item, there was agreement with the statement presented in 53 of 56 instances (94.6%). Where consensus was reached on a statement where options favorable versus unfavorable to OAGB-MGB were provided, including statements in which OAGB-MGB was compared to another procedure, the response option favorable to OAGB-MGB was selected in 13 of 23 instances (56.5%). Conclusion: Although there is general agreement that the OAGB-MGB is an effective and usually safe option for the management of patients with obesity or severe obesity, numerous areas of non-consensus remain in its use. Further empirical data are needed.

IFSO (International Federation for Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders) Consensus Conference Statement on One-Anastomosis Gastric Bypass (OAGB-MGB): Results of a Modified Delphi Study / Ramos, A. C.; Chevallier, J. -M.; Mahawar, K.; Brown, W.; Kow, L.; White, K. P.; Shikora, S.; Zeid, M. A.; Al Sabah, S.; Antozzi, P.; Bashah, M.; Bashir, A.; Behrens, E.; Bhandari, M.; Bottino, A.; Carbajo, M.; da Silva, L. E.; De Luca, M.; Demaria, E.; Elfawal, M. H.; Fobi, M. A. L.; Gari, M. K. M.; Hargroder, D. E.; Herrera, G.; Higa, K.; Himpens, J.; Jammu, G. S.; Khammas, A.; Kular, K. S.; Lakdawala, M.; Layani, L.; Luque-de-Leon, E.; Musella, M.; Pacheco, F.; Parmar, C.; Peraglie, C.; Prager, G.; Prasad, A.; Rheinwalt, K. P.; Ribeiro, R.; Robert, M.; Rosenthal, R.; Safadi, B.; Sakran, N.; Shabbir, A.; Small, P. K.; Suter, M.; Taha, O.; Taylor, C.; Verboonen, S.; Wang, C.; Weiner, R.; Williams, N.. - In: OBESITY SURGERY. - ISSN 0960-8923. - 30:5(2020), pp. 1625-1634. [10.1007/s11695-020-04519-y]

IFSO (International Federation for Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders) Consensus Conference Statement on One-Anastomosis Gastric Bypass (OAGB-MGB): Results of a Modified Delphi Study

Musella M.
Membro del Collaboration Group
;
2020

Abstract

Background: One-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB-MGB) is currently the third performed primary bariatric surgical procedure worldwide. However, the procedure is hampered by numerous controversies and there is considerable variability in surgical technique, patient selection, and pre- and postoperative care among the surgeons performing this procedure. This paper reports the results of a modified Delphi consensus study organized by the International Federation for Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders (IFSO). Methods: Fifty-two internationally recognized bariatric experts from 28 countries convened for voting on 90 consensus statements over two rounds to identify those on which consensus could be reached. Inter-voter agreement of ≥ 70% was considered consensus, with voting participation ≥ 80% considered a robust vote. Results: At least 70% consensus was achieved for 65 of the 90 questions (72.2% of the items), 61 during the first round of voting and an additional four in the second round. Where consensus was reached on a binary agree/disagree or yes/no item, there was agreement with the statement presented in 53 of 56 instances (94.6%). Where consensus was reached on a statement where options favorable versus unfavorable to OAGB-MGB were provided, including statements in which OAGB-MGB was compared to another procedure, the response option favorable to OAGB-MGB was selected in 13 of 23 instances (56.5%). Conclusion: Although there is general agreement that the OAGB-MGB is an effective and usually safe option for the management of patients with obesity or severe obesity, numerous areas of non-consensus remain in its use. Further empirical data are needed.
2020
IFSO (International Federation for Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders) Consensus Conference Statement on One-Anastomosis Gastric Bypass (OAGB-MGB): Results of a Modified Delphi Study / Ramos, A. C.; Chevallier, J. -M.; Mahawar, K.; Brown, W.; Kow, L.; White, K. P.; Shikora, S.; Zeid, M. A.; Al Sabah, S.; Antozzi, P.; Bashah, M.; Bashir, A.; Behrens, E.; Bhandari, M.; Bottino, A.; Carbajo, M.; da Silva, L. E.; De Luca, M.; Demaria, E.; Elfawal, M. H.; Fobi, M. A. L.; Gari, M. K. M.; Hargroder, D. E.; Herrera, G.; Higa, K.; Himpens, J.; Jammu, G. S.; Khammas, A.; Kular, K. S.; Lakdawala, M.; Layani, L.; Luque-de-Leon, E.; Musella, M.; Pacheco, F.; Parmar, C.; Peraglie, C.; Prager, G.; Prasad, A.; Rheinwalt, K. P.; Ribeiro, R.; Robert, M.; Rosenthal, R.; Safadi, B.; Sakran, N.; Shabbir, A.; Small, P. K.; Suter, M.; Taha, O.; Taylor, C.; Verboonen, S.; Wang, C.; Weiner, R.; Williams, N.. - In: OBESITY SURGERY. - ISSN 0960-8923. - 30:5(2020), pp. 1625-1634. [10.1007/s11695-020-04519-y]
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
IFSO Consensus OAGB:MGB.pdf

Open Access dal 01/03/2022

Tipologia: Documento in Post-print
Licenza: Accesso privato/ristretto
Dimensione 265.43 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
265.43 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11588/823961
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 86
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 81
social impact