• Skip to main content
  • Skip to header right navigation
  • Skip to site footer

Log in
www.sages.org

SAGES

Reimagining surgical care for a healthier world

  • Home
    • SAGES Home
    • SAGES Foundation Home
  • About
    • Awards
    • Who Is SAGES?
    • Leadership
    • Our Mission
    • Advocacy
    • Committees
      • SAGES Board of Governors
      • Officers and Representatives of the Society
      • Committee Chairs and Co-Chairs
      • Committee Rosters
      • SAGES Past Presidents
    • Why Should You Support SAGES?
    • SAGES Swag
  • Meetings
    • SAGES NBT Innovation Weekend
    • SAGES Annual Meeting
      • 2026 Annual Meeting
      • 2027 Scientific Session Call for Abstracts
      • 2027 Emerging Technology Call for Abstracts
    • CME Claim Form
    • SAGES Past, Present, Future, and Related Meeting Information
    • SAGES Related Meetings & Events Calendar
  • Join SAGES!
    • Membership Application
    • Membership Benefits
    • Membership Types
      • Requirements and Applications for Active Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Affiliate Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Associate Active Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Candidate Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for International Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements for Medical Student Membership
    • Member Spotlight
    • Give the Gift of SAGES Membership
  • Patients
    • Join the SAGES Patient Partner Network (PPN)
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Healthy Sooner – Patient Information for Minimally Invasive Surgery
    • Choosing Wisely – An Initiative of the ABIM Foundation
    • All in the Recovery: Colorectal Cancer Alliance
    • Find A SAGES Surgeon
  • Publications
    • Clinical / Practice / Training Guidelines, Statements, and Standards of Practice
    • Sustainability in Surgical Practice
    • SAGES Stories Podcast
    • SAGES Lead Up Podcast
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Patient Information From SAGES
    • TAVAC – Technology and Value Assessments
    • Surgical Endoscopy and Other Journal Information
    • Innovative Surgical Trends
    • SAGES Manuals
    • MesSAGES – The SAGES Newsletter
    • COVID-19 Archive
    • Troubleshooting Guides
  • Education
    • Wellness Resources – You Are Not Alone
    • Avoid Opiates After Surgery
    • SAGES Subscription Catalog
    • SAGES TV: Home of SAGES Surgical Videos
    • The SAGES Safe Cholecystectomy Program
    • Masters Program
    • Resident and Fellow Opportunities
      • MIS Fellows Course
      • SAGES Robotics Residents and Fellows Courses
      • SAGES Free Resident Webinar Series
      • Advanced Laparoscopy and Fluorescence-Guided Surgery Course for Fellows
      • Fellows’ Career Development Course
    • SAGES S.M.A.R.T. Enhanced Recovery Program
    • SAGES @ Cine-Med Products
      • SAGES Top 21 Minimally Invasive Procedures Every Practicing Surgeon Should Know
      • SAGES Pearls Step-by-Step
      • SAGES Flexible Endoscopy 101
    • SAGES OR SAFETY Video Activity
    • Foregut Video Atlas
  • Opportunities
    • Join the SAGES Patient Partner Network (PPN)
    • Fellowship Recognition Opportunities
    • SAGES Advanced Flexible Endoscopy Area of Concentrated Training (ACT) SEAL
    • Multi-Society Foregut Fellowship Certification
    • Research Opportunities
    • FLS
    • FES
    • FUSE
    • Jobs Board
    • SAGES Go Global: Global Affairs
  • Learning Hub
You are here: Home / Abstracts / COMPARING MINI-GASTRIC BYPASS AND ROUX-EN-Y GASTRIC BYPASS FOR BARIATRIC SURGERY USING THE METABOLIC AND BARIATRIC SURGERY ACCREDITAION AND QUALITY IMPROVEMENT (MBSAQIP) DATABASE

COMPARING MINI-GASTRIC BYPASS AND ROUX-EN-Y GASTRIC BYPASS FOR BARIATRIC SURGERY USING THE METABOLIC AND BARIATRIC SURGERY ACCREDITAION AND QUALITY IMPROVEMENT (MBSAQIP) DATABASE

Conrad Moher, MD, Daniel Skubleny, MD, Jerry T Dang, MD, Daniel W Birch, MD, FRCSC, Shahzeer Karmali, MD, FRCSC. University of Alberta

Introduction: The aim of this study is to determine whether MGB may be a reasonable alternative to RYGB by comparing post-operative complication rates. Mini-gastric bypass (MGB) is continuing to gain evidence as a viable bariatric procedure. Compared to the two-anastomosis laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), the MGB is performed with a single gastrojejunal anastomosis and is arguably a simpler and faster procedure in experienced hands. Significant criticism surrounds the MGB, including complications related to bile-acid reflux and the potential risk of future gastro-esophageal cancer.

Systematic reviews from Europe and Asia have established MGB as a safe and effective procedure. North American comparisons of MGB and RYGB are currently limited. This is the first study using the MBSAQIP database to compare MGB and RYGB.  

Methods and Procedures: This is a retrospective study using the MBSAQIP database. Univariate and multivariable analyses on multiple outcome measures for all primary MGB and RYGB procedures was performed. Revisional procedures were excluded. Data analyzed included demographic information, operative time, perioperative outcomes, and complication rates. Measured 30-day outcomes included: death, venous thromboembolism (VTE), bleed, leak, re-operation, re-admission, length of stay, and re-intervention.  

Results: From 2015-2016, a total of 112 MGB and 78,883 RYGB were performed. There was no difference in patient demographics except: mean body mass index (BMI) (MGB=44.0, RYGB=46.3; p=0.059), dialysis dependence (MGB=0.9%, RYGB=0.2%; p=0.064), history of DVT (MGB=4.5%, RYGB=1.9%; p=0.040), and therapeutic anticoagulant use (MGB=8.9%, RYGB=2.6%; p=0.000). Mean operative time was longer for MGB (MGB=135.6 minutes, RYGB=119.6 minutes; p=0.002). 30-day complication rates showed no significant difference in mortality, leak, bleed, re-operation and re-intervention. Significant differences were found in rates of VTE (MGB= 1.8%, RYGB= 0.4%, p=0.025), readmission (MGB=9.8%, RYGB= 6.1%; p=0.099), length of stay lasting greater than 7 days (MGB=3.6%, RYGB=1.0%; p=0.007), and acute renal failure (MGB=0.9%, RYGB=0.1%; p=0.026).

Conclusions: Our analysis of the MBSAQIP database found that MGB had longer operative times and increased complications in several categories. Significant discrepancy in data volume between MGB and RYGB within the MBSAQIP database limits the ability to establish robust conclusions. Surgical volume and differences in geographical procedural preferences likely contributes to the increased complications found for MGB. The need for additional MGB data within the MBSAQIP database must be balanced with the notion that surgeons should continue to perform procedures in which they maintain large volumes in order to mitigate procedural complications. 


Presented at the SAGES 2017 Annual Meeting in Houston, TX.

Abstract ID: 95751

Program Number: P173

Presentation Session: Poster Session (Non CME)

Presentation Type: Poster

View this Poster

Related



Hours & Info

15821 Ventura Blvd Ste 400
Encino, CA 91436

1-310-437-0544

[email protected]

Monday – Friday
8am to 5pm Pacific Time

Find Us Around the Web!

  • Bluesky
  • X
  • Instagram
  • Facebook
  • YouTube

Copyright © 2026 · SAGES · All Rights Reserved

Important Links

Healthy Sooner: Patient Information

SAGES Guidelines, Statements, & Standards of Practice

SAGES Manuals

Refine Search