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

Table 3.

Crude and adjusted analyses comparing muscle CSA and PDFF asymmetry between the two groups (absolute difference)

Variable LDH (n = 85), median (IQR) Control (n = 48), median (IQR) p
Crude
p
Adjusted
CSA (cm²)
 MFL3/4 57.6 (23.6–105.3) 60.5 (27.0–94.4) 0.938 0.615
 MFL4/5 64.6 (33.9–98.9) 60.5 (18.4–99.2) 0.648 0.632
 ESL3/4 126.1 (44.2–238.7) 121.0 (57.0–179.7) 0.549 0.489
 ESL4/5 127.4 (48.3–171.8) 71.3 (29.3–127.4) 0.009 0.081
 PML3/4 82.6 (30.1–145.3) 66.6 (31.5–108.3) 0.488 0.467
 PML4/5 75.5 (27.2–122.9) 82.9 (38.2–140.2) 0.593 0.953
 GM 290.6 (151.7–599.7) 267.8 (123.7–424.8) 0.183 0.435
PDFF (%)
 MFL3/4 1.9 (0.8–4.0) 2.1 (1.1–3.5) 0.892 0.631
 MFL4/5 2.5 (1.1–3.1) 2.0 (0.7–3.5) 0.339 0.638
 ESL3/4 1.1 (0.6–2.1) 1.0 (0.4–1.5) 0.080 0.495
 ESL4/5 2.1 (1.3–5.0) 1.7 (1.0–3.2) 0.056 0.354
 PML3/4 1.4 (0.6–2.5) 0.9 (0.3–1.9) 0.055 0.236
 PML4/5 1.9 (0.9–2.7) 1.5 (0.7–1.9) 0.025 0.174
 GM 2.1 (9.1–4.7) 1.5 (0.6–3.0) 0.029 0.128

Values were calculated as the absolute difference between the corresponding muscle parameters on the left and right sides

Bold values indicate p < 0.05

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