Background and Objectives: One anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) surgeries are effective methods used in bariatric surgery. There are limited randomized studies comparing these procedures over more than 2 years. Here, we aimed to compare the 3-year results of two bariatric procedures. Materials and Methods: Patients included in this randomized prospective study were compared in OAGB and RYGB groups. A total of 55 patients, aged between 18 and 65, were eligible for the study. Thirteen patients who did not accept randomization were excluded. Patients were evaluated at 6, 12, 24, and 36 months postoperatively. Results: Three patients were excluded from the study due to loss of communication during the clinical follow-up and one due to death by amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, which started in the eighth month after surgery. The study was completed with a total of 38 patients (OAGB; n = 20, RYGB; n = 18). Patients in the two groups were similar in terms of age, gender, body mass index (BMI), and obesity-related comorbidities. At the end of 3-year follow-up, BMI in the OAGB and RYGB groups was 28.80 ± 4.53 kg/m² and 29.17 ± 5.36 kg/m², respectively (p = 0.822). Percentage total weight loss (TWL%) was similar. No significant differences were found between the groups regarding percentage excess weight loss (EWL%). Remission of comorbidities was similar. De novo refluxes developed in four OAGB patients; there were no occurrences of these in RYGB patients (p = 0.066). Conclusions: Both OAGB and RYGB are effective in the treatment of morbid obesity. The two procedures are similarly successful in terms of obesity-related comorbidities.

Background/Objectives: Adequate bowel preparation is essential for high-quality colonoscopy. The clarity of the final rectal effluent can predict its sufficiency and guide additional preparation if necessary. For an objective and reliable clarity assessment, the stool collection method may be as important as the evaluation itself. This study was designed to compare the sensitivity of clarity assessments of effluent collected using two methods: a disposable cardboard bedpan with a white bag (Group I) and a 50 mL transparent plastic container (Group II). Methods: A prospective, single-center, randomized, comparative study was conducted between August 2024 and January 2025. Based on predefined criteria, 37 of 177 randomized patients were excluded, and 140 were analyzed. Results: Inadequate bowel preparation was correctly identified by a team member in 71% of Group I and 23% of Group II (p = 0.033). In adequate cases, the detection sensitivity was 88% and 85% (Groups I and II, respectively; p = 0.854). Significantly more patients in Group II either withdrew or failed to submit a photograph of the final rectal effluent. Patients’ verbal assessments did not differ significantly between the groups, regardless of bowel preparation quality. Conclusions: Patient self-assessment was an unreliable indicator of bowel cleanliness, highlighting the need for objective, standardized pre-colonoscopy evaluation methods. The use of a disposable cardboard bedpan with a white bag to collect the final rectal effluent may improve the accuracy of predicting inadequate preparation and patient compliance and may allow timely adjustments to bowel cleansing prior to colonoscopy in routine endoscopy practice.