Skip to main content

Table 5 Correlations between evaluation systems and mechanical complications

From: Which sagittal evaluation system can effectively predict mechanical complications in the treatment of elderly patients with adult degenerative scoliosis? Roussouly classification or Global Alignment and Proportion (GAP) Score

Characteristics

B value

SE

Wald value

P value

Exp (B) value

95% CI

Mechanical complications

      

 GAP score

1.602

0.079

7.103

0.008

1.233

(1.057, 1.439)

 Contant

− 1.602

0.667

5.770

0.016

0.201

 

 GAP catergories

1.211

0.449

7.283

0.007

3.358

(1.393, 8.092)

 Contant

− 1.910

0.779

6.017

0.014

0.148

 

 Roussouly score

− 0.721

0.341

4.481

0.034

0.486

(0.249, 0.948)

 Contant

0.590

0.342

2.969

0.085

1.804

 

 Match Roussouly-type

− 0.668

0.355

3.536

0.060

0.513

(0.256, 1.029)

 Contant

0.236

0.244

0.937

0.333

1.267

 

PJK

      

 GAP score

0.656

0.283

5.362

0.021

1.927

(1.106, 3.357)

 Contant

− 9.199

3.195

8.287

0.004

 < 0.001

 

 Roussouly score

0.108

0.654

0.027

0.869

1.114

(0.309, 4.016)

 Contant

− 2.792

0.696

16.071

 < 0.001

0.061

 

PJF

      

 GAP score

0.269

0.291

0.854

0.355

1.308

(0.740, 2.313)

 Contant

− 6.081

2.981

4.161

0.041

0.002

 

DJK or DJF

      

 GAP score

− 0.177

0.218

0.659

0.417

0.838

(0.547, 1.284)

 Contant

− 2.431

1.504

2.614

0.106

0.088

 

 GAP catergories

− 1.349

1.003

1.808

0.179

0.259

(0.036, 1.854)

 Contant

− 1.865

1.269

2.169

0.141

0.155

 

 Roussouly score

− 0.581

1.150

0.255

0.613

0.559

(0.059, 5.328)

 Contant

− 3.301

0.923

12.787

 < 0.001

0.037

 

Implant-related complications

      

 GAP score

0.085

0.073

1.372

0.241

1.089

(0.944, 1.258)

 Contant

− 0.979

0.627

2.443

0.118

0.376

 

 GAP catergories

0.573

0.416

1.897

0.168

1.774

(0.785, 4.010)

 Contant

− 1.231

0.721

2.910

0.088

0.292

 

 Roussouly score

− 0.846

0.358

5.588

0.018

0.429

(0.213, 0.865)

 Contant

0.301

0.337

0.801

0.371

1.352

 

 Match Roussouly-type

− 0.922

0.710

1.686

0.194

0.398

(0.099, 1.599)

 Contant

-0.177

0.243

0.528

0.467

0.838

 

Implant loosening

      

 GAP score

0.151

0.079

3.682

0.055

1.163

(0.997, 1.357)

 Contant

− 1.730

0.694

6.219

0.013

0.177

 

 GAP catergories

1.127

0.495

5.180

0.023

3.087

(1.169, 8.147)

 Contant

− 2.382

0.888

7.199

0.007

0.092

 

 Roussouly score

− 0.511

0.347

2.169

0.141

0.600

(0.304, 1.184)

 Contant

− 0.144

0.333

0.187

0.665

0.866

 

 Match Roussouly-type

− 0.681

0.711

0.916

0.338

0.506

(0.126, 2.040)

 Contant

− 0.418

0.248

2.841

0.092

0.659

 

Implant breakage

      

 GAP score

− 0.260

0.165

2.496

0.114

0.771

(0.558, 1.065)

 Contant

− 1.219

1.037

1.380

0.240

0.296

 

 GAP catergories

− 1.425

0.748

3.628

0.057

0.241

(0.056, 1.042)

 Contant

− 1.031

0.961

1.150

0.284

0.357

 
  1. SE, standard error; CI, confidence interval; GAP score, global alignment and proportion score; PJK, proximal junctional kyphosis; PJF, proximal junctional failure; DJK, distal junctional kyphosis; DJF, distal junctional failure
Back to article page

Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research

ISSN: 1749-799X