Outcomes of single anastomosis duodeno ileal bypass and single anastomosis stomach ileal bypass for type II diabetes: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Bariatric surgery has demonstrated long-term effectiveness in inducing weight loss and improving metabolic parameters for obesity. Single anastomosis duodeno-ileal (SADI) bypass and single anastomosis sleeve-ileal (SASI) bypass have both emerged as new promising bariatric procedures. In this paper, we review the existing literature and compare the outcomes of SADI and SASI bypass procedures in regard to weight loss, complication rate, and improvement of type II diabetes (T2DM). This has not yet been done in the preexisting literature.Areas covered We conducted a systematic literature search of electronic databases focusing on weight loss outcomes, rate of complications and remission, or improvement of T2DM and other obesity-related comorbidities. Seventeen studies on SADI and nine studies on SASI were included. Both are similar in terms of surgical technique and have demonstrated fewer complications when compared to other bariatric procedures. Mean preoperative BMI was similar in both study groups: 46.4 kg/m2 in SADI and 48.8 kg/m2 in SASI. Mean %EWL at 12 months in the SADI group was 74.1% compared to 77.4% in the SASI group. Preoperative severity of T2DM appeared to be higher in the SASI patient group, with a higher preoperative HbA1c and fasting blood glucose levels. T2DM resolution was achieved in a significant proportion of both SADI and SASI patient populations (78.5% in SADI and 89.0% in SASI). Complication rates were comparable for both procedures.Expert opinion Both SADI and SASI are effective in inducing weight loss at 12 months, with a low rate of major complications and mortality. From the studies included in this review, the SASI procedure had a higher impact on T2DM resolution compared to SADI.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".