. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2017 Jun 29.

Published in final edited form as: J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015 Dec;24(12):1845–1851. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2015.08.038

Table 1.

Subject and tear characteristics for the entire full-thickness tear cohort and by cable integrity (N=139).

Variable	Entire Cohort (N=139)	By Cable Disruption
Variable	Entire Cohort (N=139)	Disrupted (n=43)	Intact (n=96)	p-value
Age at enrollment (years), mean (SD)	63.3 (8.7) range 33.9 – 84.5	64.3 (7.9)	62.8 (9.1)	0.35^*
Study period duration (years), median [IQR]	6.0 [5.3] range 0.3 – 11.4	3.9 [5.0]	6.1 [5.5]	0.09^†
Baseline tear width (mm), median [IQR]	11.0 [10.0] range 3.0 – 42.0	19.0 [10.0]	10.0 [6.0]	<0.0001^†
Width enlargement, n (% of group): no yes	60 (43%) 79 (57%)	14 (33%) 29 (67%)	46 (48%) 50 (52%)	0.09^‡
Width Enlargers (n=79)
Duration of follow-up until width enlargement (years), median [IQR]	2.8 [4.6] range 0.0 – 10.3	2.2 [3.4]	3.2 [5.0]	0.37^†

SD = standard deviation; IQR = interquartile range; n = number of patients; mm = millimeters

P-value compares disrupted vs. intact cable by analysis of variance

^†

P-value compares disrupted vs. intact cable by analysis of variance using rank-transformed data

^‡

P-value compares the proportion of tears that have width enlargement for tears with a disrupted vs. intact cable by chi-square test.