Skip to main content
. 2022 Oct 17;242(2):213–223. doi: 10.1111/joa.13774

TABLE 1.

Comparison of the mean cross‐sectional area (CSA) of the ankle tendons between different groups (young, middle‐age, and old)

Variable Sample (n = 60) Young (n = 20) Middle‐age (n = 20) Old (n = 20) p‐value Middle‐age X Young (ES) Middle‐age X Old (ES)
Side (R: L) 30: 30 9: 11 8: 12 13: 7
Age 44.4 ± 19.9 22.5 ± 4.5 40.6 ± 8.00 69.9 ± 9.1 <0.01
Gender (M: F) 30: 30 10: 10 10: 10 10: 10
Weight 77.9 ± 15.4 72.4 ± 16.5 80.6 ± 17.8 74.7 ± 9.8 0.32
TA_CSA_normalized 0.64 ± 0.15 0.65 ± 0.13 0.67 ± 0.09 0.61 ± 0.18 0.29 0.18 0.42
TP_CSA_normalized 0.85 ± 0.23 0.91 ± 0.22 0.87 ± 0.16 0.80 ± 0.28 0.28 0.21 0.31
FT_CSA_normalized 0.99 ± 0.25 0.93 ± 0.18 1.06 ± 0.21 0.93 ± 0.28 0.13 0.66 0.53
AT_CSA_normalized 2.59 ± 0.52 2.51 ± 0.58 3.42 ± 0.58 2.61 ± 0.51 <0.01 a 1.57 b 1.48 b

p‐value <0.01 as shown as bold.

Abbreviations: AT, Achilles; ES, effect size; FT, fibularis; mm2/Kg3/4, normalization; TA, tibialis anterior; TP, tibialis posterior.

a

There were significant differences of the AT CSA between middle‐age and young and between middle‐age and old groups (ANOVA one‐way and Bonferroni post hoc comparison; p < 0.01).

b

The effect size for both comparisons was considered large according to Cohen's d values.