Skip to main content
. 2022 Jun;42(1):41–46.

Table 2.

Comparison of Injury and Treatment Characteristics Between Weight Groups

Normal/Underweight (n = 112) Obese/overweight (n =103) P
Mechanism of Injury (%) 0.028
 Low Energy 89 (79.5) 93 (90.3)
 High Energy 23 (20.5) 10 (9.7)
Location of Fracture n (%) 0.0029
 Distal 38 (33.9) 58 (56.9)
 Midshaft 68 (60.7) 39 (38.2)
 Proximal 6 (5.4) 5 (4.9)
Physeal Injury n (%) <0.0001
 Yes 32 (28.6) 56 (54.4)
 No 80 (71.4) 47 (45.6)
Salter-Harris Type n (%), if Physeal 0.7882
 SH I 4 (12.5) 7 (12.1)
 SH II 21 (65.6) 40 (71.4)
 SH III or IV 7 (21.9) 9 (16.1)
Operative n (%) 0.2124
 Yes 31 (27.7) 21 (20.4)
 No 81 (72.3) 82 (79.6)
Unplanned Change in Treatment n (%) 0.0129
 Yes 9 (8.2) 1 (0.97)
 No 101 (91.8) 102 (99.0)
Avg number of X-rays taken , Median (Q1, Q3) 6 (4, 9) 7 (5, 10) 0.137
Avg length of treatment (wks) , Median (Q1, Q3) 7 (4.5, 10) 8 (6.5, 11) 0.045

Significant values in bold. Table comparing findings of injury and treatment characteristics between the two weight groups. Values are represented as number and percentage in parentheses (%). Median (Q1, Q3) are used to summarize continuous patient characteristics.