Page 30 - World Journal of Laparoscopic Surgeons

WJOLS

Posterior Rectus Sheath
Table 1: Age distribution of patients with different types of PRS according to its extent
Hernias Patients Age, mean ± SD (range) Sig.
PRS type n % n % Years CID t- or f-value (2-tailed) p-value
IC-PRS 54 79.4 47 78.3 51.64 ± 16.42 (18–80) −3.508 to 17.868 t = 1.3447 0.184 >0.05
C-PRS 14 20.6 13 21.7 44.46 ± 19.23 (19–72)
Total 68 100 60 100
IC-PRS types
NIC 41 75.9 35 74.5 50.51 ± 17.86 (18–80) – F 2 44 = 0.318 0.729 >0.05
LIC 10 18.5 9 19.1 55.22 ± 11.63 (40–72)
SIC 3 5.6 3 6.4 54 ± 12.17 (40–62)
C vs NIC vs LIC vs SIC – – – – – – F 3 56 = 0.785 0.507 >0.05
Total 54 100 47 100
CID: 95% confidence interval of difference; t: independent-sample t-test value; F: one-way analysis of variance value; p > 0.05: insignificant

Table 2: The BMI distribution of patients with different types of PRS according to its extent
Hernia Patient BMI, mean ± SD (range) kg/m 2 Sig.
PRS type n % n % Years CID t- or f-value (2-tailed) p-value
IC-PRS 54 79.4 47 78.3 22.54 ± 2.22 (19.3–31.2) −1.471 to 1.0914 t = 0.2968 0.7677 >0.05
C-PRS 14 20.6 13 21.7 22.73 ± 1.13 (20.9–24.3)
Total 68 100 60 100
IC-PRS types
NIC 41 75.9 35 58.3 22.20 ± 1.65 (19.3–27.5) – F 2 44 = 23.303 0 <0.001
LIC 10 18.5 9 15.0 21.81 ± 0.71 (20.9–23.2)
SIC 3 5.6 3 5.0 28.63 ± 2.38 (26.5–31.2)
C vs NIC vs – – – – – – F 3 56 = 17.314 0 <0.001
LIC vs SIC
Total 54 100 47 100
CID: 95% confidence interval of difference; t: independent-sample t-test value; F: one-way analysis of analysis value; p > 0.05: insignificant

Table 3: Age distribution of the patients with various morphological types of PRS
Hernias Patients Age, mean ± SD (range) kg/m 2
PRS type n % n % Years f-value Sig. (2-tailed) p-value
WT + MT 44 64.71 39 65.00 44.18 ± 17.51 (18–80) F 3 56 = 0.895 0.449 >0.05
PT 16 23.53 14 23.33 52.64 ± 15.66 (21–80)
TO 4 5.88 4 6.67 51.00 ± 26.41 (20–80)
GA 4 5.88 3 5.00 48.67 ± 12.20 (35–58)
Total 68 100 60 100
WT also includes 1 case of MT PRS to avoid invalidation of statistical analysis due to n less than 2 in any group; F: one-way analysis
of variance value; Sig.: Significance value; p > 0.05: not significant

Table 4: The BMI distribution of the patients with different types of PRS according to its morphology
Hernias Patients BMI, mean ± SD (Range) kg/m 2
PRS type n % n % Years f-value Sig. (2-tailed) p-value
WT + MT 44 64.71 39 65.00 22.85 ± 2.34 (19.3–31.2) F 3 56 = 0.716 0.547 >0.05
PT 16 23.53 14 23.33 21.96 ± 1.22 (19.5–23.8)
TO 4 5.88 4 6.67 22.15 ± 1.39 (20.9–23.5)
GA 4 5.88 3 5.00 22.47 ± 0.84 (21.5–23.00)
Total 68 100 60 100
WT also includes 1 case of MT PRS to avoid invalidation of statistical analysis due to n less than 2 in any group; F: one-way analysis
of analysis value; Sig.: Significance value; p > 0.05: not significant

(WT + MT, PT, TO, and GA) of the PRS morphology (Tables 3 as compared with the other types, which are called the
and 4). In other words, the PRS morphology was inde- variant types (Tables 5 and 6). The classical morphology
pendent of the changes in the age or BMI of the patients. (NWT) of the PRS was seen in 31 out of 68 cases, while
The normal-length whole-tendinous (NWT) incom- variant PRS was observed in 37 instances. The classical
plete PRS is traditionally known as the classical type and variant groups of the PRS were not significantly
World Journal of Laparoscopic Surgery, January-April 2018;11(1):12-24 17