Table 3 Comparison of parameters in Roussouly classification between MC and NMC
Variables | MC (n = 41) | NMC (n = 39) | P value |
|---|---|---|---|
Roussouly-type | 0.082 | ||
1 | 4 (9.8%) | 11 (28.2%) | 0.035 |
2 | 5 (12.2%) | 6 (15.4%) | 0.679 |
3 | 23 (56.1%) | 19 (48.7%) | 0.509 |
4 | 9 (22.0%) | 3 (7.7%) | 0.074 |
Post-LA | 0.262 | ||
L2 | 2 (4.9%) | 0 (0%) | 0.162 |
L2/3 | 3 (7.3%) | 0 (0%) | 0.085 |
L3 | 4 (9.8%) | 6 (15.4%) | 0.447 |
L3/4 | 3 (7.3%) | 3 (7.7%) | 0.949 |
L4 | 12 (29.3%) | 16 (41.0%) | 0.270 |
L4/5 | 11 (26.8%) | 6 (15.4%) | 0.211 |
L5 | 6 (14.6%) | 8 (20.5%) | 0.489 |
Ideal LA | 0.082 | ||
L3/4 | 9 (30.0%) | 3 (7.7%) | 0.074 |
L4 | 23 (56.1%) | 19 (48.7%) | 0.509 |
L4/5 | 5 (12.2%) | 6 (15.4%) | 0.679 |
L5 | 4 (9.8%) | 11 (28.2%) | 0.035 |
Match ideal LA | 9 (30.0%) | 25 (64.1%) | < 0.001 |
Post-IP | 0.033 | ||
T11 | 1 (2.4%) | 0 (0%) | 0.326 |
T12 | 8 (19.5%) | 2 (5.1%) | 0.053 |
L1 | 19 (46.3%) | 15 (38.5%) | 0.476 |
L1/2 | 0 (0%) | 2 (5.1%) | 0.142 |
L2 | 8 (19.5%) | 18 (46.2%) | 0.011 |
L3 | 5 (12.2%) | 2 (5.1%) | 0.264 |
Ideal IP | 0.082 | ||
T12 | 9 (22.0%) | 3 (7.7%) | 0.074 |
L1 | 23 (56.1%) | 19 (48.7%) | 0.509 |
L2 | 5 (12.2%) | 6 (15.4%) | 0.679 |
L3 | 4 (9.8%) | 11 (28.2%) | 0.035 |
Match ideal Post-IP | 15 (36.6%) | 11 (28.2%) | 0.424 |
Post-PI | 53.1 ± 13.0 | 48.7 ± 8.9 | 0.082 |
Post-PT | 25.0 ± 12.2 | 19.4 ± 5.3 | 0.009 |
Post-SS | 27.7 ± 6.0 | 28.6 ± 8.3 | 0.577 |
Match Roussouly-type | 3 (7.3%) | 9 (23.1%) | 0.048 |
Roussouly score | 0.6 ± 0.6 | 0.9 ± 0.7 | 0.032 |