Skip to main content
. 2025 Aug 14;16:176. doi: 10.1186/s13244-025-02064-9

Table 2.

Crude and adjusted analyses of muscle CSA and PDFF between the two groups

LDH (n = 85), mean ± SD Control (n = 48), mean ± SD d p
Crude
p
Adjusted
CSA (cm²)
 MFL3/4 641.8 ± 153.5 591.5 ± 123.9 0.36 0.054 0.785
 MFL4/5 970.3 ± 184.5 930.5 ± 188.7 0.21 0.238 0.500
 ESL3/4 1901.1 ± 497.9 1744.5 ± 562.8 0.29 0.099 0.759
 ESL4/5 1358.8 ± 348.7 1295.5 ± 345.4 0.18 0.315 0.991
 PML3/4 1042.0 ± 371.7 954.3 ± 351.4 0.24 0.185 0.875
 PML4/5 1304.0 ± 399.4 1212.8 ± 384.6 0.23 0.202 0.993
 GM 1531.1 ± 501.4 1360.9 ± 630.9 0.30 0.090 0.954
PDFF (%)
 MFL3/4 14.5 ± 5.7 12.5 ± 5.0 0.37 0.047 0.223
 MFL4/5 16.2 ± 5.5 13.6 ± 4.7 0.51 0.005 0.028
 ESL3/4 11.6 ± 4.6 8.9 ± 4.3 0.61 0.001 0.123
 ESL4/5 19.4 ± 7.8 14.5 ± 7.0 0.66 <0.001 0.031
 PML3/4 9.5 ± 2.9 7.0 ± 2.9 0.86 <0.001 0.011
 PML4/5 10.5 ± 3.3 7.8 ± 3.3 0.82 <0.001 0.038
 GM 15.0 ± 5.5 11.3 ± 4.5 0.74 <0.001 0.080

Values were calculated as the average of the parameters from both sides of the muscles

Bold values indicate p < 0.05

CSA cross-sectional area, PDFF proton density fat fraction, LDH lumbar disc herniation, SD standard deviation, MF multifidus, ES erector spinae, PM psoas major, GM gluteus medius