The role of the paraspinal muscles in the development of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis based on surface electromyography and radiographic analysis

Table 1 Demographic characteristics of the patients (mean ± SD)

	Total cohort (n = 27)	Group A (PEP-Cobb < RPP-Cobb) (n = 13)	Group B (PEP-Cobb > RPP-Cobb) (n = 14)	Statistics	p
Gender (f/m)	20/7	10/3	10/4	-	1.000 ^a
Age (years)	14.30 ± 1.38	13.92 ± 1.44	14.64 ± 1.28	t= -1.376	0.181
Height (m)	1.63 (1.60, 1.66)^b	1.63 (1.60, 1.65)^b	1.67 ± 0.07	z = 0.659	0.519
Weight (kg)	51.56 ± 12.50	47.08 ± 10.59	55.71 ± 13.05	t= -1.876	0.072
BMI (kg/m²)	17.85 (16.33, 20.15)^b	17.45 (16.16, 18.64)^b	20.27 ± 4.56	z = 1.407	0.169
Disease duration (months)	12.0(4.5, 18.0)^b	6.0 (2.0, 21.0)^b	12.0 (5.63,15.0) ^b	z = 0.642	0.550
HSP-Cobb (°)	30.59 ± 11.69	25.68 ± 8.64	35.14 ± 12.57	t= -2.261	0.033*
Curve type (T%)	37.0	38.5	35.7	-	1.000 ^a
Risser sign	4.0(2.0, 4.0)^b	4.0(4.0, 4.0)^b	3.5(2.0, 4.0)^b	z=-1.047	0.295

^aSignificance assessed by Fisher’s exact test; ^b: values are presented as median (P25, P75); HSP-Cobb: Cobb angle in the habitual standing position; Group A (PEP-Cobb < RPP-Cobb): patients in whom the Cobb angle in the prone extension position (PEP-Cobb) is smaller than or equal to the Cobb angle in the relaxed prone position (RPP-Cobb); Group B (PEP-Cobb > RPP-Cobb): patients in whom the PEP-Cobb is greater than the RPP-Cobb; BMI: body mass index; *p < 0.05 for the comparison of group A with group B

ISSN: 1471-2474