Table 4.
With PFP | Without PFP | P-value | |
---|---|---|---|
SVA | 3.4 (8.7–6.9) | 1.5 (6.8–4.5) | 0.605 |
GT | 32 (35.8–23) | 21 (25–14) | < 0.05 |
T1PA | 24 (28–14.5) | 11.2 (18–4) | < 0.05 |
PT | 32.5 (37–24) | 20 (25.5–13) | < 0.05 |
PI | 61 (67.8–53.8) | 44 (54–35) | < 0.05 |
LL | 39 (46.5–24.3) | 49 (58.5–41) | < 0.05 |
PI-LL | 21 (26.8–13) | -2 (5–14) | < 0.05 |
HKA | 3 (13–1) | 1 (3–0) | < 0.05 |
KFA | 3 (10.8–1) | 2 (3–1) | < 0.05 |
LDFA | 90 (98–87.3) | 87 (89–85) | < 0.05 |
MPTA | 85 (87–76.5) | 87 (89–86) | < 0.05 |
The comparison was carried out by independent sample non-parametric test. Significant difference in PFP was revealed between the two subgroups of subjects