Table 4.

Logistic regression analysis of PT for surgery

Characteristics	OR	95% CI		P
		LL	UL
PT (Model 1)
≦ 18.4°	Ref.
> 18.4°	3.117	1.961	4.955	< 0.001
PT (Model 2)
≦ 18.4°	Ref.
> 18.4°	3.209	1.987	5.183	< 0.001
PT (Model 3)
≦ 18.4°	Ref.
> 18.4°	3.142	1.611	6.129	0.001
PT (Model 1)
≦ 11.4°	Ref.
> 11.4° and ≦ 18.0°	1.298	0.623	2.708	0.486
> 18.0° and ≦ 25.3°	3.269	1.663	6.428	0.001
> 25.3°	3.796	1.935	7.448	< 0.001
PT (Model 2)
≦ 11.4°	Ref.
> 11.4° and ≦ 18.0°	1.349	0.642	2.834	0.430
> 18.0° and ≦ 25.3°	3.502	1.732	7.078	< 0.001
> 25.3°	4.074	2.024	8.198	< 0.001
PT (Model 3)
≦ 11.4°	Ref.
> 11.4° and ≦ 18.0°	1.408	0.625	3.175	0.409
> 18.0° and ≦ 25.3°	3.903	1.588	9.591	0.003
> 25.3°	4.987	1.472	16.893	0.010

PT, Pelvic Tilt; OR, Odds Ratio; LL, Lower Limit; UL, Upper Limit; CI, Confident Interval; Ref., Reference

Note: The optimal threshold of the continuous variable PT was 18.4°, leading to the development of a binary classification ( ≦ 18.4° vs. >18.4°). Additionally, the first quartile of PT was 11.4°, the median was 18.0°, and the third quartile was 25.3°, resulting in the establishment of a four-class classification ( ≦ 11.4° vs. >11.4°, ≦18.0° vs. >18.0°, and ≦ 25.3° vs. >25.3°)

Model 1: adjusted for none variables;

Model 2: adjusted for age and sex;

Model 3: adjusted for age, sex, PI, lower lumbar lordosis, PI-LL, T1 pelvic angle, global title, pelvic shift, and C7-CSVL