Table 2.
Results obtained analyzing the difference between: injured and control knees shape; contralateral and control knees shape and injured and contralateral knees. Significance p-value <0.01. (a,b) Surfaces rigidly aligned (c,d) Surfaces Euclidean aligned.
| (a) | |
|---|---|
|
| |
| 2nd Mode Femur (scale-preserved dataset) | |
| ACL injured | 365.55 (84.41) |
| Control | 306.89 (60.89) |
| P-value (unpaired Ttest) | *0.007 |
| Contralateral | 351.65 (81.58) |
| Control | 306.89 (60.89) |
| P-value (unpaired Ttest) | 0.03 |
| ACL injured | 365.55 (84.41) |
| Contralateral | 351.65 (81.58) |
| P-value (paired Ttest) | 0.03 |
| (b) | |
|---|---|
|
| |
| 3rd Mode Tibia (scale-preserved dataset) | |
| ACL injured | 107.06 (40.06) |
| Control | 70.47 (47.21) |
| P-value (unpaired Ttest) | *0.002 |
| Contralateral | 111.59 (44.45) |
| Control | 70.47 (47.21) |
| P-value (unpaired Ttest) | *0.001 |
| ACL injured | 107.06 (40.06) |
| Control | 111.59 (44.45) |
| P-value (paired Ttest) | 0.32 |
| (c) | |
|---|---|
|
| |
| 1st Mode Femur (Euclidean aligned dataset) | |
| ACL injured | 292.85 (88.26) |
| Control | 231.72 (65.11) |
| P-value (unpaired Ttest) | *0.007 |
| Contralateral | 281.69 (82.96) |
| Control | 231.72 (65.11) |
| P-value (unpaired Ttest) | 0.021 |
| ACL injured | 292.85 (88.26) |
| Contralateral | 281.69 (82.96) |
| P-value (paired Ttest) | 0.11 |
| (d) | |
|---|---|
|
| |
| 2nd Mode Tibia (Euclidean aligned dataset) | |
| ACL injured | 79.52 (23.17) |
| Control | 61.00 (24.51) |
| P-value (unpaired Ttest) | *0.004 |
| Contralateral | 84.9 (35.38) |
| Control | 61.00 (24.51) |
| P-value (unpaired Ttest) | *0.009 |
| ACL injured | 79.52 (23.17) |
| Control | 61.00 (24.51) |
| P-value (paired Ttest) | 0.34 |