Table 3.
Regression analysis of the relationship between the postoperative paraspinal muscle volume loss and age
| Age vs | MRI (n = 24) | p-value | CT (n = 16) | p-value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| β coefficient | Adjusted R2 | β coefficient | Adjusted R2 | |||
| Changes of MF (cm3) | ||||||
| Right | −0.592 | 0.321 | 0.002a | −0.076 | − 0.065 | 0.780 |
| Left | − 0.489 | 0.204 | 0.015a | 0.114 | −0.057 | 0.674 |
| Changes of ES (cm3) | ||||||
| Right | 0.203 | −0.002 | 0.342 | −0.590 | 0.301 | 0.016a |
| Left | 0.267 | 0.029 | 0.207 | −0.281 | 0.013 | 0.292 |
| Changes of Psoas (cm3) | ||||||
| Right | 0.184 | −0.010 | 0.388 | 0.019 | −0.071 | 0.945 |
| Left | 0.155 | −0.020 | 0.469 | 0.189 | −0.033 | 0.482 |
MRI magnetic resonance imaging, CT computed tomography, SD standard deviation, MF multifidus, ES erector spinae
aStatistically significant difference was defined as p < 0.05