Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Springer logoLink to Springer
. 2023 Sep 20;33(11):3422–3430. doi: 10.1007/s11695-023-06796-9

Preserved Muscle Strength Despite Muscle Mass Loss After Bariatric Metabolic Surgery: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Han Na Jung 1, Seon-Ok Kim 2, Chang Hee Jung 3,4, Woo Je Lee 3,4, Myung Jin Kim 3,4, Yun Kyung Cho 3,4,✉
PMCID: PMC10602996  PMID: 37728838

Abstract

Background

Contrary to the previously known concept of muscle mass decrease following bariatric metabolic surgery, changes in muscle strength have been poorly investigated in systematic reviews. In this meta-analysis, we evaluated changes in handgrip strength (HGS) and lean mass (LM) after undergoing bariatric metabolic surgery.

Methods

A systematic literature review using the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases was conducted in November 2022. Longitudinal studies reporting HGS change after bariatric metabolic surgery were eligible. Pooled estimates for changes in HGS, body mass index (BMI), LM, and fat mass (FM) were calculated. Changes from baseline to the point closest to 6 months postoperatively were analyzed in trials with multiple follow-up examinations. The risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklist.

Results

Three randomized controlled trials and seven prospective cohort studies involving 301 patients were included. Follow-up evaluations were conducted 6 months postoperatively in all trials except for two, whose follow-up visits were at 18 weeks and 12 months, respectively. Pooled analysis showed reduced BMI (− 10.8 kg/m2; 95% confidence interval: − 11.6 to − 9.9 kg/m2), LM (− 7.4 kg; − 9.3 to − 5.4 kg), and FM (− 22.3 kg; − 25.1 to − 19.6 kg) after bariatric metabolic surgery, whereas the change in HGS was not statistically significant (− 0.46 kg; − 1.76 to 0.84 kg).

Conclusion

Despite the decreased body composition parameters, including muscle mass, strength was not impaired after bariatric metabolic surgery; this indicates that bariatric metabolic surgery is an effective weight management intervention that does not compromise strength.

Graphical Abstract

graphic file with name 11695_2023_6796_Figa_HTML.jpg

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11695-023-06796-9.

Keywords: Bariatric surgery, Obesity, Muscle strength

Introduction

Bariatric metabolic surgery is a well-established weight management method with robust evidence of safety and efficacy for profound reduction in weight and associated medical problems [1, 2]. However, muscle mass decreases after bariatric metabolic surgery, have raised concern regarding the increased risk of sarcopenia [3, 4]. Significant postoperative loss of muscle mass, as assessed by bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA), dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), or plethysmography, is apparent within 1 month, and over half of the annual loss occurs within 3 months of surgery [3, 4]. Therefore, efforts have been made to measure muscle mass perioperatively to estimate the likelihood of sarcopenia [5].

The 2010 European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People (EWGSOP) definition of sarcopenia required an evidence of low muscle mass [6]. However, clinical implications of strength versus muscle mass are emerging [7, 8]. In a 17-country prospective analysis, lower handgrip strength (HGS) was associated with increased cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular mortality [7]. Similarly, the health, aging, and body composition study of older participants found that knee extension and HGS were better predictors of mortality than muscle size, as measured by computed tomography or DXA. Accordingly, the 2018 update of the European consensus for the diagnosis of sarcopenia prioritizes strength over muscle mass [9]. Specifically, HGS is the preferred screening test in sarcopenia diagnostic guidelines due to its convenience, cost-effectiveness, and reliability [9–11].

Despite the recognized importance of strength, a few studies have examined the effect of bariatric metabolic surgery on strength. Only one previous meta-analysis on physical function reported changes in strength after bariatric metabolic surgery [12]. However, it included literature published through 2015, and only five trials were included in the pooled analysis of strength [12]. Furthermore, the results were limited as strength data from different measurement methods and body parts were combined to calculate a pooled estimate [12]. Thus, we investigated changes in HGS after bariatric metabolic surgery and changes in body composition, including lean mass (LM) and fat mass (FM).

Methods

Search Strategy and Study Selection

The literature search approach was based on the population, intervention, comparison, and outcome protocol. This systematic review examined the adherence to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses [13]. The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies written in English and published between their inception to November 2, 2022. The search terms are listed in Supplementary Table 1. In addition, a manual search was conducted on the references cited in the identified articles.

Eligible articles were longitudinal studies on patients who underwent bariatric metabolic surgery that reported changes in HGS or provided baseline and postoperative HGS data. Two researchers (HNJ and YKC) independently examined the identified articles to determine whether they met the inclusion criteria. Differences in opinions regarding eligibility were resolved through consensus.

Data Extraction and Quality Assessment

The primary outcome was the difference in the HGS in kg before and after bariatric metabolic surgery. The secondary outcomes were differences in body mass index (BMI; kg/m2), LM (kg), and FM (kg). Two independent investigators used a standardized data extraction form to gather the following data: author name; year of publication; study location; study design; follow-up interval; number of patients; percentage of men; type of bariatric metabolic surgery; method of measuring HGS and body composition; and baseline data including age, BMI, HGS, LM, and FM. Moreover, information on the mean changes in HGS, BMI, LM, and FM after bariatric metabolic surgery was obtained, along with information on measures of variability such as standard deviation (SD). If a study revealed only baseline and postoperative values, the mean changes were computed by subtracting the average baseline value from the average postoperative value. The SD of the difference between the two values was calculated by assuming a correlation of 0.5 between them [14]. For trials with multiple follow-up examinations, the time point for postoperative data was set to be the closest to 6 months postoperatively. The reason for choosing a 6-month interval is that it represents the period of most pronounced loss of weight and muscle mass and is, therefore, the period during which muscle strength is most likely to be affected [3, 15]. In multi-arm trials, patients who underwent interventions other than bariatric metabolic surgery were excluded from the analysis.

Two researchers (HNJ and YKC) independently evaluated the methodological quality of individual studies according to the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklist [16]. Discrepancies in the quality assessment were resolved through discussion.

Statistical Analysis

Pooled estimates of the changes in HGS, BMI, LM, and FM after bariatric metabolic surgery were analyzed. Subgroup analyses of the primary outcome were performed based on the type of bariatric metabolic surgery, percentage of men, and hand side for HGS measurement. A random-effects model was conducted to combine the studies, and forest plots were used to depict the results. Heterogeneity among the included studies was examined using the I2 statistic and Cochrane Q test [17]. The degree of heterogeneity was considered low, moderate, or high according to I2 values of 25%, 50%, and 75%, respectively [17]. Evidence of heterogeneity between studies was defined as a Q statistic with a P value of < 0.1 [17]. Funnel plots were used to detect publication bias with asymmetry indicating the potential for publication bias. Statistical analyses were conducted using the R statistical software (R Foundation, version 4.2.0).

Results

Study Selection

Of the 1148 citations obtained during the literature search, 10 studies involving patients who underwent bariatric metabolic surgery were eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis (Fig. 1.) [18–27]. Most excluded studies after a full-text review either had no data on HGS or only provided baseline or postoperative data, making it impossible to calculate the changes. A study by Smelt et al. was excluded as it required all patients to receive a specific dose of vitamin D, which could have confounded the effect of bariatric metabolic surgery on outcomes [28]. Moreover, data from a study by Stegen et al. were excluded owing to the exceptionally high HGS values compared with those in the other included studies (baseline HGS, 95.9 kg vs. 25.7–36 kg), despite using the same measurement tools and units [29].

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

Study selection flowchart. HGS, handgrip strength

Of the 10 included studies, seven were single-arm prospective cohort studies [18, 20–22, 24, 26, 27], and three were randomized controlled trials [19, 23, 25] (Table 1). Schollenberger et al. divided patients into either a postsurgical protein supplementation group or a control group that received an isocaloric placebo [19]. Oppert et al. randomized patients into three categories: exercise plus protein supplementation, protein supplementation only, and control [23]. A study by Noack-Segovia et al. divided patients into exercise and control groups [25]. We included only control groups from randomized controlled trials to align with patients from the remaining cohort studies who received usual care after undergoing bariatric metabolic surgery; this resulted in 301 patients included in the pooled analysis.

Table 1.

Summary of the studies included in the analysis

Author, year [ref] Country Study design F/U interval N Men, % Surgery type Measurement method Baseline data
HGS (dynamometer) Body composition Age, years BMI, kg/m2 HGS, kg LM, kg FM, kg
Otto, 2014 [18] Germany PCS 18 W 25 36.0 SG, RYGB Average of 3 trials with each hand (dominant hand data was used) BIA 40.4 ± 10.8 47.4 ± 6.3 31.2 ± 7.0 71.5 ± 13.8 64.6 ± 15.8
Schollenberger, 2016 [19] Germany RCT 6 M 10 20.0 SG, RYGB NA BIA 47.0 ± 11.9 49.0 ± 5.1 30.0 ± 4.9a 68.9 ± 13.4 68.2 ± 12.0
Cole, 2017 [20] USA PCS 6 M 5 0.0 RYGB Average of 4 trials, 2 from each hand DXA 47.2 ± 10.9 48.8 ± 9.7 31.9 ± 6.1 63.5 ± 13.2 75.4 ± 22.6
Neunhaeuserer, 2017 [21] Italy PCS 6 M 26 30.8 SG Average of 3 trials with each hand (right hand data was used) NA 48.2 ± 9.0 45.2 ± 5.8 32.0 ± 9.3 NA NA
Gallart-Aragón, 2017 [22] Spain PCS 6 M 72 34.7 SG Average of 3 trials with each hand (dominant hand data was used) NA 45.4 ± 9.4 46.5 ± 5.6 31.1 ± 11.5 NA NA
Oppert, 2018 [23] France RCT 6 M 22 0.0 RYGB Maximum of 5 trials with each hand DXA 43.9 ± 10.7 43.6 ± 6.2 30.6 ± 5.7 55.6 ± 8.4 58.7 ± 11.8
Alba, 2019 [24] USA PCS 12 M 44 21.3 RYGB Maximum with dominant hand DXA 45 ± 12 44 ± 7 NAb 62 ± 12 56 ± 12
Noack-Segovia, 2019 [25] Chile RCT 6 M 22 25.6c NA Maximum of 3 trials with each hand BIA 33 ± 6.9c 36.7 ± 3.3 34.2 ± 8.9 61.5 ± 13.5 41.0 ± 6.4
Coral, 2021 [26] Brazil PCS 6 M 62 16.1 SG, RYGB Median of 3 trials BIA 38.4 ± 10.8 42.2 ± 0.7 25.7 ± 1.2 32.5 ± 0.8 55.8 ± 1.3
Zhou, 2022 [27] Belgium PCS 6 M 13 46.2 SG, RYGB Using minimum 3 and maximum 1 of 5 trials DXA 49 ± 14 39.5 ± 3.5 36 ± 9 56 ± 10 53 ± 9
Open in a new tab

Data are presented as mean (standard deviation) unless otherwise specified

aThe data are expressed in pounds and converted using a rate of 1 lb = 0.454 kg

bOnly the change in HGS is presented, not the baseline data

cOnly the combined sex ratio and mean age of the control (bariatric metabolic surgery only) and intervention (bariatric metabolic surgery plus physical exercise) groups are reported

F/U, Follow-up; N, number of patients; HGS, handgrip strength; BMI, body mass index; LM, lean mass; FM, fat mass; PCS, prospective cohort study; W, weeks; SG, sleeve gastrectomy; RYGB, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass; BIA, bioelectrical impedance analysis; RCT, randomized controlled trial; M, months; NA, not available; DXA, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry

Baseline Characteristics and Risk of Bias

Table 1 provides an overview of the outlines of the selected studies. The studies were conducted in European countries [18, 19, 21–23, 27], the USA [20, 24], and South America [25, 26] (Table 1). Except for the studies by Otto et al. and Alba et al., which carried out follow-up evaluations at 18 weeks and 12 months, respectively [18, 24], all other studies carried out follow-up evaluations at 6 months postoperatively [19–23, 25–27] (Table 1). Women were predominant in all studies [18–27], with only women included in the studies by Cole et al. and Oppert et al. [20, 23] (Table 1). The types of surgery were sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) [18–27], although Noack-Segovia et al. did not provide details on the specific surgery type [25] (Table 1).

The patients’ average age and preoperative BMI were 30–50 years and 36.7–49.0 kg/m2, respectively [18–27] (Table 1). The studies used varying measurement methods for HGS, with definitions based on mean, median, or maximum values, and measurements taken from the dominant hand, right hand, or both hands [18–27] (Table 1). All studies except those by Neunhaeuserer et al. and Gallart-Aragón et al. reported body composition data obtained using BIA or DXA, with the muscle index represented by LM [18–20, 23–27] (Table 1).

A comprehensive assessment of study quality is presented in Supplementary Table 2, which reveals that all the 10 studies showed a low to moderate risk of bias.

Changes in HGS, BMI, and Body Composition

Postoperative HGS did not show a significant change from baseline in any of the studies, except for that by Alba et al., who reported a postoperative decrease in HGS (Fig. 2). The pooled analysis of HGS showed no significant change after bariatric metabolic surgery (mean difference [MD]: − 0.5 kg; 95% confidence interval [CI]: − 1.8 to 0.8 kg).

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Open in a new tab

Forest plot of a meta-analysis of change in handgrip strength (kg) after bariatric metabolic surgery. The horizontal lines flanking the squares indicate the 95% confidence intervals. The diamonds depict the combined estimates

Regarding the secondary outcomes, only studies providing data were included, with BMI analyzed in 257 patients from nine studies and LM and FM in 203 patients from eight studies (Fig. 3). Significant reductions in BMI, LM, and FM were observed in all studies except for those by Schollenberger et al. and Cole et al., where the decrease in LM was not statistically significant. In the pooled analysis, all BMI (MD: − 10.8 kg/m2; 95% CI: − 11.6 to − 9.9 kg/m2), LM (MD: − 7.4 kg; 95% CI: − 9.3 to − 5.4 kg), and FM (MD: − 22.3 kg; 95% CI: − 25.1 to − 19.6 kg) were significantly reduced after bariatric metabolic surgery.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3

Open in a new tab

Forest plots of meta-analyses of changes in a body mass index (kg/m2), b lean mass (kg), and c fat mass (kg) after bariatric metabolic surgery. The horizontal lines flanking the squares indicate the 95% confidence intervals. The diamonds depict the combined estimates

The I2 statistic and Cochrane Q test indicated moderate heterogeneity between studies for HGS and BMI, but high heterogeneity for LM and FM. Considering the unusually low baseline LM observed in the study by Coral et al. (32.5 kg in their study vs. 55.6–71.5 kg in other studies) [26], the LM analysis was performed excluding the study by Coral et al., which significantly reduced heterogeneity (I2 decreased from 92 to 0%). This finding suggests that the high heterogeneity in LM can be attributed to the low baseline LM observed in the study by Coral et al. However, LM still significantly decreased from baseline in the pooled analysis, excluding the study by Coral et al. (MD: − 8.7 kg; 95% CI: − 9.4 to − 7.9 kg). Meanwhile, a subgroup analysis by continent for FM improved heterogeneity within the studies conducted in Europe and North America, with I2 values of 0% in both continents. The South American subgroup showed persistent high heterogeneity with an I2 value of 92%. However, further analysis was not feasible owing to the limited number (2) of the included studies. Overall, continents influence heterogeneity in the FM analysis, but significantly reduced FM was observed in all subgroups by continent (MD: − 19.8 kg [95% CI: − 21.3 to − 18.3 kg] for Europe; MD: − 27.5 kg [− 29.5 to − 25.5 kg] for North America; MD: − 22.5 kg [− 27.6 to − 17.4 kg] for South America). Funnel plots revealed a low possibility of publication bias in the meta-analysis (Figs. S1 and S2).

A subgroup analysis based on the type of bariatric metabolic surgery on the change in HGS revealed no significant change in the pooled analysis of the three studies with SG (MD: 0.2 kg; 95% CI: − 1.4 to 1.8 kg) and low heterogeneity was noted (Fig. S3). Moreover, a meta-analysis of four studies with RYGB reported no significant difference in postoperative HGS compared with that at baseline (MD: − 1.7 kg; 95% CI: − 4.1 to 0.7 kg), although the degree of heterogeneity was moderate to high. In addition, a subgroup analysis was conducted by stratifying studies based on the percentage of men below or above 30% (Fig. S4). In the pooled analysis of trials with < 30% of men, HGS was reduced by 1.5 kg (95% CI: − 2.9 to − 0.2 kg), whereas in trials with > 30% of men, HGS did not change significantly, with improved heterogeneity in both subgroups. Stratification by hand side revealed no significant changes in HGS across all subgroups (Fig. S5).

Discussion

Despite BMI, LM, and FM decreases after bariatric metabolic surgery, HGS was unchanged in a meta-analysis of longitudinal data. The pooled analysis for each type of surgery, SG and RYGB, indicated no significant changes in HGS with either procedure. This study not only summarizes the current knowledge on perioperative changes in strength, but also provides evidence that bariatric metabolic surgery is an effective strategy for weight loss without compromising strength.

Two of the studies included in the meta-analysis reported postoperative changes in relative HGS [24, 27]. Alba et al. showed a significant improvement in the ratio of HGS to both BMI and appendicular LM, with percentage changes of 31.9% and 9.2%, respectively, 12 months after undergoing RYGB [24]. Zhou et al. reported that HGS divided by arm LM was significantly increased by 2.3 at 6 months after undergoing SG or RYGB [27]. The clinical significance of relative HGS was validated in several studies [30–32]. An analysis of data from the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey reported a negative association between higher quartiles of the HGS-to-BMI ratio and the risk of metabolic syndrome [30]. Cross-sectional population-based studies in Taiwan and China revealed an even stronger association between BMI-normalized HGS and healthy cardiometabolic parameters than with absolute HGS [31, 32]. A pooled analysis of the changes in relative HGS after bariatric metabolic surgery was not possible in the present study because of the small number of available studies. However, the relative HGS is expected to increase postoperatively, as most of the included studies showed a significant decrease in BMI and LM while maintaining HGS, which further supports the safety of bariatric metabolic surgery.

All studies in the meta-analysis revealed a nonsignificant change in HGS at the follow-up period [18–23, 25–27], whereas only Alba et al. reported a decrease at 6 and 12 months after bariatric metabolic surgery [24]. Nevertheless, relative HGS, presented as HGS divided by BMI or appendicular LM, was significantly enhanced in the study by Alba et al. [24] Furthermore, despite significant reductions in weight and LM during the 6- to 12-month interval, an upward trend was observed in absolute HGS and a significant increase in relative HGS during the same period [24]. Therefore, the study by Alba et al. reinforces the idea that changes in HGS after bariatric metabolic surgery are distinct from those in LM and other body composition measures.

The main explanation for the preservation of muscle strength as opposed to the loss of muscle mass following bariatric metabolic surgery may be the improvement in muscle quality. Increased infiltration of intramuscular fat exacerbates muscle stiffness and inflammation, leading to muscle weakness [33–35]. In contrast, microscopic examination revealed amelioration of lipid accumulation in the abdominal muscle 1 year after undergoing RYGB [36]. Similarly, a secondary analysis of the Longitudinal Assessment of Bariatric Surgery-2 revealed that intermuscular adipose tissue measured using whole body MRI, a widely accepted marker of muscular fat, decreased by 50% 12 months after bariatric metabolic surgery [37]. Weight reduction increases muscle oxidative capacity via promoting muscle capillarization and succinate dehydrogenase function, although its correlation to bariatric metabolic surgery has not been determined [38]. The enhancement of muscle quality resulting from bariatric metabolic surgery may counterbalance the negative effects of decreased muscle mass on muscle function.

Concerns regarding sarcopenia have increased owing to the loss of muscle mass following bariatric metabolic surgery [3, 4]. A recent meta-analysis on the change in LM over time after bariatric metabolic surgery reported a loss of 4.5 kg in the first 3 months and 8.1 kg by 12 months [3]; these results are consistent with our findings of a 7.4-kg loss in LM between 18 weeks and 12 months postoperatively. Similarly, another systematic review reported that time-varying fat-free mass (FFM) decreased by 5.6, 6.6, and 8.3 kg at 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively, after bariatric metabolic surgery [4]. In contrast, physical function, as measured by validated techniques such as the 6-min walk distance, short physical performance battery, or timed up-and-go test, is significantly enhanced by bariatric metabolic surgery [39]. Improvements in physical function were observed as early as 3 months postoperatively for the 6-min walk distance and even earlier for components of the short physical performance battery [39], whereas 55% and 67% of the 1-year loss occurred within 3 months for LM and FFM, respectively [3, 4].

One possible reason for the discrepancy between muscle mass and physical function after bariatric metabolic surgery is an increase in strength. Functional capacity is more strongly related to muscle strength than muscle mass [40–42]. Among the diagnostic indicators of sarcopenia, including low LM, HGS, and gait speed, poor HGS was the only independent risk factor for recurrent falls among participants in the longitudinal aging study Amsterdam [40]. A pooled analysis of prospective studies also showed that low muscle strength, rather than low muscle mass, was significantly associated with impaired physical function [41, 42]. The latest EWGSOP guidelines recommend strength over muscle mass for parameter of sarcopenia as muscle weakness is a better predictor of adverse outcomes [9]. Based on this evidence, bariatric metabolic surgery does not increase the risk of sarcopenia since postoperative strength is maintained despite body composition changes. Contrary to the misconception that sarcopenia is a disease of old age, the prevalence of sarcopenia ranges from 8.8 to 35.7% in healthy young adults around the average age of patients in this meta-analysis [43]. Our results proved that bariatric metabolic surgery can be performed in young age groups without concerns about sarcopenia.

This study had several limitations. First, the included studies were heterogeneous. This may be due to differences in countries, follow-up intervals, sex ratios, methods used to measure HGS and body composition, and other preoperative characteristics. Therefore, pooled estimates were generated using a random-effects model and subgroup analyses were performed. In particular, the improved heterogeneity in the subgroup analysis for the proportion of men showed a sex influence on HGS change, which requires further investigation of sex-specific data. Second, meta-analyses of strength measurements other than HGS were not possible, although weight-bearing muscles such as the back, pelvis, and lower extremities may reveal distinct outcomes. HGS was the most commonly used assessment tool in our systematic review of research assessing strength after bariatric metabolic surgery. Alternative methods were used infrequently, making it difficult to conduct their pooled analysis. Moreover, HGS is a valid surrogate for strength in other body parts, and the EWGSOP diagnostic algorithm for sarcopenia recommends it as an initial work-up [9–11]. The HGS appears to be the most pragmatic and generalizable tool for quantifying muscle strength after undergoing bariatric metabolic surgery; however, additional research is required to determine the most reliable measure. Third, the results might have been influenced by the exclusion of certain data owing to insufficient information, such as the HGS value in the study by Stegen et al. [29], surgical types in the study by Noack-Segovia et al. [25], or unknown hand side for measuring HGS in some studies [19, 26, 27]. Fourth, the change in LM, which we used as a proxy for muscle mass, only partially reflected the change in muscle mass as LM comprises organ and water content as well as muscle [3]. Finally, the studies included in the analysis were limited to non-Hispanic white or Hispanic populations, compromising the generalizability to any ethnicity.

Despite these limitations, we demonstrated that HGS was preserved while BMI, LM, and FM were reduced after bariatric metabolic surgery, thus refuting traditional doubts about postoperative sarcopenia. As muscle strength is recommended as the primary test to diagnose sarcopenia, generalization of perioperative strength measurements should be considered. Specifically, HGS is affordable, accessible, and has the most cumulative evidence in patients who have undergone bariatric metabolic surgery. Future research on the long-term effects of bariatric metabolic surgery on strength, muscle quality, and metabolic benefits associated with strength maintenance would facilitate the standardized assessment of perioperative strength in clinical practice.

Conclusion

Muscle strength, as represented by HGS, was unaffected by bariatric metabolic surgery, which lowered LM and other body composition indices. Nowadays, strength is considered more clinically significant than muscular mass; however, there is a lack of sufficient data on changes in strength following bariatric metabolic surgery. In this context, our results underscore the safety of bariatric metabolic surgery in preserving muscle function.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOC 970 KB) (970KB, doc)

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the Asan Medical Library (University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea) for providing the search terms for the systematic review and Editage (www.editage.co.kr) for the English language review.

Data Availability

All data analyzed during this study are included in this published article.

Declarations

Ethical Approval

For this type of study, formal consent is not required.

Informed Consent

Informed consent does not apply.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Footnotes

Key Points

• Known muscle loss after bariatric metabolic surgery raised concerns about sarcopenia.

• Changes in strength, a more reliable marker of sarcopenia, have been poorly studied.

• We showed preserved handgrip strength postoperatively despite the loss of lean mass.

• Bariatric metabolic surgery allows weight management without compromising strength.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  • 1.Arterburn DE, Telem DA, Kushner RF, Courcoulas AP. Benefits and risks of bariatric surgery in adults: a review. JAMA. 2020;324:879–887. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.12567. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Colquitt JL, Pickett K, Loveman E, Frampton GK. Surgery for weight loss in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;2014:Cd003641. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003641.pub4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Nuijten MAH, Eijsvogels TMH, Monpellier VM, Janssen IMC, Hazebroek EJ, Hopman MTE. The magnitude and progress of lean body mass, fat-free mass, and skeletal muscle mass loss following bariatric surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obes Rev. 2022;23:e13370. doi: 10.1111/obr.13370. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Haghighat N, Ashtary-Larky D, Bagheri R, et al. Preservation of fat-free mass in the first year after bariatric surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 122 studies and 10,758 participants. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2022;18:964–982. doi: 10.1016/j.soard.2022.02.022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Voican CS, Lebrun A, Maitre S, et al. Predictive score of sarcopenia occurrence one year after bariatric surgery in severely obese patients. PLoS One. 2018;13:e0197248. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0197248. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Baeyens JP, Bauer JM, et al. Sarcopenia: European consensus on definition and diagnosis: Report of the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People. Age Ageing. 2010;39:412–423. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afq034. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Leong DP, Teo KK, Rangarajan S, et al. Prognostic value of grip strength: findings from the prospective urban rural epidemiology (PURE) study. Lancet. 2015;386:266–273. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)62000-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Newman AB, Kupelian V, Visser M, et al. Strength, but not muscle mass, is associated with mortality in the health, aging and body composition study cohort. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2006;61:72–77. doi: 10.1093/gerona/61.1.72. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Bahat G, Bauer J, et al. Sarcopenia: revised European consensus on definition and diagnosis. Age Ageing. 2019;48:16–31. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afy169. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Lauretani F, Russo CR, Bandinelli S, et al. Age-associated changes in skeletal muscles and their effect on mobility: an operational diagnosis of sarcopenia. J Appl Physiol. 1985;2003(95):1851–1860. doi: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00246.2003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Wind AE, Takken T, Helders PJ, Engelbert RH. Is grip strength a predictor for total muscle strength in healthy children, adolescents, and young adults? Eur J Pediatr. 2010;169:281–287. doi: 10.1007/s00431-009-1010-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Herring LY, Stevinson C, Davies MJ, et al. Changes in physical activity behaviour and physical function after bariatric surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obes Rev. 2016;17:250–261. doi: 10.1111/obr.12361. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Higgins JP, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. 2008.
  • 15.Maciejewski ML, Arterburn DE, Van Scoyoc L, et al. Bariatric surgery and long-term durability of weight loss. JAMA Surg. 2016;151:1046–1055. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2016.2317. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Tufanaru C, Munn Z, Aromataris E, Campbell J, Hopp L. Systematic reviews of effectiveness. 2017. Joanna Briggs Institute reviewer’s manual. The Joanna Briggs Institute Adelaide, Australia: 2017. pp 3–10.
  • 17.Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. Bmj. 2003;327:557–560. doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Otto M, Kautt S, Kremer M, Kienle P, Post S, Hasenberg T. Handgrip strength as a predictor for post bariatric body composition. Obes Surg. 2014;24:2082–2088. doi: 10.1007/s11695-014-1299-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Schollenberger AE, Karschin J, Meile T, Küper MA, Königsrainer A, Bischoff SC. Impact of protein supplementation after bariatric surgery: a randomized controlled double-blind pilot study. Nutrition. 2016;32:186–192. doi: 10.1016/j.nut.2015.08.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Cole AJ, Kuchnia AJ, Beckman LM, et al. Long-term body composition changes in women following Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2017;41:583–591. doi: 10.1177/0148607115625621. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Neunhaeuserer D, Gasperetti A, Savalla F, et al. Functional evaluation in obese patients before and after sleeve gastrectomy. Obes Surg. 2017;27:3230–3239. doi: 10.1007/s11695-017-2763-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Gallart-Aragón T, Fernández-Lao C, Castro-Martín E, Cantarero-Villanueva I, Cózar-Ibáñez A, Arroyo-Morales M. Health-related fitness improvements in morbid obese patients after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: a cohort study. Obes Surg. 2017;27:1182–1188. doi: 10.1007/s11695-016-2427-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Oppert JM, Bellicha A, Roda C, et al. Resistance training and protein supplementation increase strength after bariatric surgery: a randomized controlled trial. Obesity (Silver Spring) 2018;26:1709–1720. doi: 10.1002/oby.22317. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Alba DL, Wu L, Cawthon PM, et al. Changes in lean mass, absolute and relative muscle strength, and physical performance after gastric bypass surgery. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2019;104:711–720. doi: 10.1210/jc.2018-00952. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Noack-Segovia JP, Sánchez-López AM, García-García I, Rodríguez-Blanque R, León-Ríos XA, Aguilar-Cordero MJ. Physical exercise and grip strength in patients intervened through bariatric surgery. Aquichan. 19(3):e1936.
  • 26.Coral RV, Bigolin AV, Machry MC, et al. Improvement in muscle strength and metabolic parameters despite muscle mass loss in the initial six months after bariatric surgery. Obes Surg. 2021;31:4485–4491. doi: 10.1007/s11695-021-05634-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Zhou N, Scoubeau C, Forton K, et al. Lean mass loss and altered muscular aerobic capacity after bariatric surgery. Obes Facts. 2022;15:248–256. doi: 10.1159/000521242. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Smelt HJM, Pouwels S, Celik A, Gupta A, Smulders JF. Assessment of physical fitness after bariatric surgery and its association with protein intake and type of cholecalciferol supplementation. Medicina (Kaunas). 2019;55(6):281.10.3390/medicina55060281 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 29.Stegen S, Derave W, Calders P, Van Laethem C, Pattyn P. Physical fitness in morbidly obese patients: effect of gastric bypass surgery and exercise training. Obes Surg. 2011;21:61–70. doi: 10.1007/s11695-009-0045-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Yi DW, Khang AR, Lee HW, Son SM, Kang YH. Relative handgrip strength as a marker of metabolic syndrome: the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHANES) VI (2014–2015) Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes. 2018;11:227–240. doi: 10.2147/DMSO.S166875. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Lee WJ, Peng LN, Chiou ST, Chen LK. Relative handgrip strength is a simple indicator of cardiometabolic risk among middle-aged and older people: a nationwide population-based study in Taiwan. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0160876. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0160876. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Li D, Guo G, Xia L, et al. Relative handgrip strength is inversely associated with metabolic profile and metabolic disease in the general population in China. Front Physiol. 2018;9:59. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2018.00059. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Rahemi H, Nigam N, Wakeling JM. The effect of intramuscular fat on skeletal muscle mechanics: implications for the elderly and obese. J R Soc Interface. 2015;12:20150365. doi: 10.1098/rsif.2015.0365. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Addison O, Drummond MJ, LaStayo PC, et al. Intramuscular fat and inflammation differ in older adults: the impact of frailty and inactivity. J Nutr Health Aging. 2014;18:532–538. doi: 10.1007/s12603-014-0019-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Cesari M, Penninx BW, Pahor M, et al. Inflammatory markers and physical performance in older persons: the InCHIANTI study. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2004;59:242–248. doi: 10.1093/gerona/59.3.M242. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Camastra S, Vitali A, Anselmino M, et al. Muscle and adipose tissue morphology, insulin sensitivity and beta-cell function in diabetic and nondiabetic obese patients: effects of bariatric surgery. Sci Rep. 2017;7:9007. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-08444-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Toro-Ramos T, Goodpaster BH, Janumala I, et al. Continued loss in visceral and intermuscular adipose tissue in weight-stable women following bariatric surgery. Obesity (Silver Spring) 2015;23:62–69. doi: 10.1002/oby.20932. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Kern PA, Simsolo RB, Fournier M. Effect of weight loss on muscle fiber type, fiber size, capillarity, and succinate dehydrogenase activity in humans. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1999;84:4185–4190. doi: 10.1210/jcem.84.11.6090. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Steele T, Cuthbertson DJ, Wilding JP. Impact of bariatric surgery on physical functioning in obese adults. Obes Rev. 2015;16:248–258. doi: 10.1111/obr.12247. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Schaap LA, van Schoor NM, Lips P, Visser M. Associations of sarcopenia definitions, and their components, with the incidence of recurrent falling and fractures: the longitudinal aging study Amsterdam. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2018;73:1199–1204. doi: 10.1093/gerona/glx245. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.McLean RR, Shardell MD, Alley DE, et al. Criteria for clinically relevant weakness and low lean mass and their longitudinal association with incident mobility impairment and mortality: the foundation for the National Institutes of Health (FNIH) sarcopenia project. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2014;69:576–583. doi: 10.1093/gerona/glu012. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Schaap LA, Koster A, Visser M. Adiposity, muscle mass, and muscle strength in relation to functional decline in older persons. Epidemiol Rev. 2013;35:51–65. doi: 10.1093/epirev/mxs006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Jung HN, Jung CH, Hwang YC. Sarcopenia in youth. Metabolism. 2023;144:155557. doi: 10.1016/j.metabol.2023.155557. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary file1 (DOC 970 KB) (970KB, doc)

Data Availability Statement

All data analyzed during this study are included in this published article.

Articles from Obesity Surgery are provided here courtesy of Springer

RESOURCES