Gladys Witt Strain1, Faith Ebel2, Jamie Honohan2, Michel Gagner3, Gregory F Dakin2, Alfons Pomp2, Dympna Gallagher4. 1. Weill Cornell College of Medicine, Department of Surgery, New York, New York. Electronic address: gls2010@med.cornell.edu. 2. Weill Cornell College of Medicine, Department of Surgery, New York, New York. 3. Hopital du Sacre Coeur, Department of Surgery, Montreal, Canada. 4. Columbia University, Obesity Research Center, New York, New York.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Concerns about an excessive loss of fat-free mass (FFM) after bariatric surgery prompted this comparison of operated versus matched nonoperated controls regarding FFM. SETTING: University Hospital and University Research Unit in an urban medical center. METHODS: Body composition with bioelectric impedance (Tanita 310, Tanita Corp, Arlington Heights, IL) was measured approximately 2 years after bariatric surgery in weight stable patients and nonoperated weight stable controls matched for body mass index (BMI), gender, and age. t tests provided comparisons. Analysis of variance was used to compare FFM changes for 4 procedures. Levene's test evaluated variance. RESULTS: Patients (n = 252; 24.7±15 mo after surgery) and nonoperated controls (n = 252) were matched for gender (71.8% female), age (44.5±11.0 yr), and BMI (32.8±7.0 kg/m2). Patients had different surgical procedures: 107 gastric bypasses (RYGBs), 62 biliopancreatic diversions with duodenal switch (BPD/DSs), 40 adjustable gastric bands (AGBs), and 43 sleeve gastrectomies (LSGs). FFM percentage was significantly higher in the operated patients than controls, 66% versus 62%, P<.0001. For 3 procedures, the FFM was significantly higher; however, AGBs changed only 7.3 BMI units and FFM was not significantly different from their matched controls, 59.8% versus 58.2%. Across surgical groups, FFM percentage differed, P<.0001 (RYGB 66.5±9.2%, BPD/DS 74.0±9.3%, AGB 59.8±7.0%, LSG 59.6±9.3%). Variance was not different (P = .17). CONCLUSION: Weight-reduced bariatric surgery patients have greater FFM compared with nonoperated matched controls. These findings support surgically assisted weight loss as a physiologic process and in general patients do not suffer from excessive FFM depletion after bariatric procedures.
OBJECTIVE: Concerns about an excessive loss of fat-free mass (FFM) after bariatric surgery prompted this comparison of operated versus matched nonoperated controls regarding FFM. SETTING: University Hospital and University Research Unit in an urban medical center. METHODS: Body composition with bioelectric impedance (Tanita 310, Tanita Corp, Arlington Heights, IL) was measured approximately 2 years after bariatric surgery in weight stable patients and nonoperated weight stable controls matched for body mass index (BMI), gender, and age. t tests provided comparisons. Analysis of variance was used to compare FFM changes for 4 procedures. Levene's test evaluated variance. RESULTS:Patients (n = 252; 24.7±15 mo after surgery) and nonoperated controls (n = 252) were matched for gender (71.8% female), age (44.5±11.0 yr), and BMI (32.8±7.0 kg/m2). Patients had different surgical procedures: 107 gastric bypasses (RYGBs), 62 biliopancreatic diversions with duodenal switch (BPD/DSs), 40 adjustable gastric bands (AGBs), and 43 sleeve gastrectomies (LSGs). FFM percentage was significantly higher in the operated patients than controls, 66% versus 62%, P<.0001. For 3 procedures, the FFM was significantly higher; however, AGBs changed only 7.3 BMI units and FFM was not significantly different from their matched controls, 59.8% versus 58.2%. Across surgical groups, FFM percentage differed, P<.0001 (RYGB 66.5±9.2%, BPD/DS 74.0±9.3%, AGB 59.8±7.0%, LSG 59.6±9.3%). Variance was not different (P = .17). CONCLUSION: Weight-reduced bariatric surgery patients have greater FFM compared with nonoperated matched controls. These findings support surgically assisted weight loss as a physiologic process and in general patients do not suffer from excessive FFM depletion after bariatric procedures.
Authors: Sai Krupa Das; Susan B Roberts; Joseph J Kehayias; Jack Wang; L K George Hsu; Scott A Shikora; Edward Saltzman; Megan A McCrory Journal: Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab Date: 2003-02-25 Impact factor: 4.310
Authors: Ian R Pateyjohns; Grant D Brinkworth; Jonathan D Buckley; Manny Noakes; Peter M Clifton Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 5.002
Authors: Wendy C King; Jesse Y Hsu; Steven H Belle; Anita P Courcoulas; George M Eid; David R Flum; James E Mitchell; John R Pender; Mark D Smith; Kristine J Steffen; Bruce M Wolfe Journal: Surg Obes Relat Dis Date: 2011-08-16 Impact factor: 4.734
Authors: Gladys W Strain; Jack Wang; Michel Gagner; Alfons Pomp; William B Inabnet; Steven B Heymsfield Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2008-06-12 Impact factor: 5.002
Authors: Stanley Heshka; Thaisa Lemos; Nerys M Astbury; Elizabeth Widen; Lance Davidson; Bret H Goodpaster; James P DeLany; Gladys W Strain; Alfons Pomp; Anita P Courcoulas; Susan Lin; Isaiah Janumala; Wen Yu; Patrick Kang; John C Thornton; Dympna Gallagher Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2020-02 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Gabriel Cunha Beato; Michele Novais Ravelli; Alex Harley Crisp; Maria Rita Marques de Oliveira Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2019-01 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Lance E Davidson; Wen Yu; Bret H Goodpaster; James P DeLany; Elizabeth Widen; Thaisa Lemos; Gladys W Strain; Alfons Pomp; Anita P Courcoulas; Susan Lin; Isaiah Janumala; John C Thornton; Dympna Gallagher Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2018-05-30 Impact factor: 5.002