Table 1.
All patients (n=188) | Employed (n=82) | Permanent disability (n=106) | P-value† | |
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Age in years, mean | 31.4 (range 19.1-74.6) | 31.9 (SD 12.2) | 31.1 (SD 7.76) | 0.538 |
| ||||
Gender | 0.561 | |||
Female | 119 (63.3%) | 50 (42.0%) | 69 (58.0%) | |
Male | 69 (36.7%) | 32 (46.4%) | 37 (53.6%) | |
| ||||
Primary diagnosis | <0.001 | |||
Open myelomeningocele | 163 (86.7%) | 61 (37.4%) | 102 (62.6%) | |
Lipomyelomeningocele | 17 (9.0%) | 14 (82.4%) | 3 (17.7%) | |
Diastematomyelia | 5 (2.7%) | 5 (100%) | 0 (0%) | |
Other | 3 (1.5%) | 2 (66.7%) | 1 (33.3%) | |
| ||||
Transition from Children’s of Alabama | 0.754 | |||
No | 117 (62.2%) | 50 (42.7%) | 67 (57.3%) | |
Yes | 71 (37.8%) | 32 (45.1%) | 39 (54.9%) | |
| ||||
Race | 0.199 | |||
White | 155 (82.5%) | 72 (46.5%) | 83 (53.5%) | |
Black | 31 (16.5%) | 9 (29.0%) | 22 (71.0%) | |
Other | 2 (1.0%) | 1 (50.0%) | 1 (50.0%) | |
| ||||
Ethnicity | 0.418 | |||
Not Hispanic or Latino | 185 (98.4%) | 80 (43.2%) | 105 (56.8%) | |
Hispanic or Latino | 3 (1.6%) | 2 (66.7%) | 1 (33.3%) | |
| ||||
BMI* | 0.596 | |||
<30 | 94 (60.3%) | 41 (43.6%) | 53 (56.4%) | |
30-40 | 40 (25.6%) | 17 (42.5%) | 23 (57.5%) | |
>40 | 22 (14.1%) | 7 (31.8%) | 15 (68.2%) | |
| ||||
Education level | <0.001 | |||
Primary/secondary | 109 (58.0%) | 28 (25.7%) | 81 (74.3%) | |
Technical school | 2 (1%) | 1 (50%) | 1 (50%) | |
Some college | 50 (26.6%) | 33 (66.0%) | 17 (34.0%) | |
College degree | 20 (10.6%) | 14 (70.0%) | 6 (30.0%) | |
Advanced degree | 7 (3.7%) | 6 (85.7%) | 1 (14.3%) | |
| ||||
Insurance status | <0.001) | |||
Commercial insurance | 83 (46.1%) | 51 (61.5%) | 32 (38.5%) | |
Medicaid | 60 (33.3%) | 13 (21.7%) | 47 (78.3%) | |
Medicare | 31 (17.2%) | 13 (41.9%) | 18 (58.1%) | |
Other | 6 (3.3%) | 2 (33.3%) | 4 (66.7) | |
| ||||
Active bowel management program | 0.365 | |||
No | 143 (76.1%) | 65 (45.5%) | 78 (54.5%) | |
Yes | 45 (23.9%) | 17 (37.8%) | 28 (62.2%) | |
| ||||
Active bladder management program (self-catheterization) | 0.749 | |||
No | 55 (29.3%) | 23 (41.8%) | 32 (58.2%) | |
Yes | 133 (70.3%) | 59 (44.4%) | 74 (55.6%) | |
| ||||
Stool incontinence frequency, mean (SD) | 0.001 | |||
At least daily | 25 (13.3%) | 4 (16.0%) | 21 (84.0%) | |
Less than daily, more than weekly | 30 (15.9%) | 8 (26.7%) | 22 (73.3%) | |
Less than weekly, more than monthly | 15 (8.0%) | 6 (40.0%) | 9 (60.0%) | |
Less than monthly | 8 (4.2%) | 3 (37.5%) | 5 (62.5%) | |
Never | 80 (42.6%) | 47 (58.8%) | 33 (41.2%) | |
Cannot assess | 30 (15.9% | 14 (46.7%) | 16 (53.3%) | |
| ||||
Urine incontinence frequency, mean (SD) | 0.037 | |||
At least daily | 48 (25.5%) | 15 (31.3%) | 33 (68.8%) | |
Less than daily, more than weekly | 11 (5.9%) | 4 (36.4%) | 7 (63.6%) | |
Less than weekly, more than monthly | 13 (6.9%) | 5 (38.5%) | 8 (61.5%) | |
Less than monthly | 4 (2.1%) | 0 (0%) | 4 (100%) | |
Never | 83 (44.1%) | 45 (54.2%) | 38 (45.8%) | |
Cannot assess | 29 (15.4%) | 13 (44.8%) | 16 (55.2%) | |
| ||||
Functional lesion level | 0.206 | |||
Thoracic (flaccid lower extremities) | 84 (44.7%) | 29 (34.5) | 55 (65.5%) | |
High-lumbar (hip flexion present) | 18 (9.6%) | 9 (50.0) | 9 (50.0%) | |
Mid-lumbar (knee extension present) | 38 (20.2%) | 20 (52.6) | 18 (47.4%) | |
Low-lumbar (foot dorsiflexion present) | 16 (8.5%) | 8 (50.0) | 8 (50.0) | |
Sacral (foot plantarflexion present) | 32 (17.0%) | 15 (46.9) | 17 (53.1%) | |
| ||||
Independent ambulation | 0.021 | |||
Community ambulation | 54 (28.7%) | 33 (61.1%) | 21 (38.9%) | |
Household ambulation | 14 (7.5%) | 6 (42.9%) | 8 (57.1%) | |
Therapeutic ambulation | 6 (3.2%) | 2 (33.3%) | 4 (66.7%) | |
Non-ambulatory | 144 (60.6%) | 41 (36.0%) | 73 (64.0%) | |
| ||||
Ventricular shunt | <0.001 | |||
No | 52 (27.7%) | 34 (65.4%) | 18 (34.6%) | |
Yes | 136 (72.3%) | 48 (35.3%) | 88 (64.7%) | |
| ||||
Ventricular shunt revision | 0.010 | |||
0 | 98 (52.1%) | 53 (54.1%) | 45 (45.9%) | |
1-3 | 64 (34.0%) | 21 (32.8%) | 43 (67.2%) | |
Greater than 3 | 26 (13.8)% | 8 (30.8% | 18 (69.2%) |
Student’s t-test and logistic regression were used for comparison of means; Chi-square was used for comparison of proportions.
BMI data available for 156 patients. Complete data points available for all other patients.
Statistically significant at p<0.05