Skip to main content
. 2014 Mar 6;472(12):3789–3797. doi: 10.1007/s11999-014-3548-3

Table 3.

Comparison of callus shape and type according to Li et al. [34] between the two groups

Classification Number of tibias p value
Treatment group (injection) Control group (noninjection)
Callus shape 0.66
 Fusiform 2 4
 Cylindrical 18 16
 Concave 0 0
 Lateral 0 0
 Central 0 0
Callus type 0.66
 Normal density 16 18
 Intermediate density 4 2
 Low density 0 0