Page 31 - World Journal of Laparoscopic Surgeons

Maulana M Ansari
Table 5: Age distribution of various subtypes of PRS according to the combined features of its morphology and extent
Hernias Patients Age, mean ± SD (range)
PRS type n % n % Years CID t- or f-value Sig. (2-tailed) p-value
NWT 31 45.6 27 45.00 49.67 ± 17.48 (18–80) −9.7357 to 8.2357 t = 0.1671 0.8679 >0.05
V-PRS 37 54.4 33 55.00 50.42 ± 17.15 (19–80)
Total 68 100 60 100
V-PRS type
SWT 3 8.1 3 9.1 54 ± 12.17 (40–62)
LWT 3 8.1 2 6.1 53.5 ± 4.95 (50–57)
CWT 6 16.2 6 18.2 48.17 ± 21.74 (20–72)
CMT 1 2.7 1 3.0 19.00 ± 0.00 (–)
NPT 8 21.6 7 21.2 49.57 ± 18.28 (21–80)
LPT 7 18.9 7 21.2 55.71 ± 13.23 (40–72) – F 10 26 = 1.088 0.407 >0.05
CPT 1 2.7 OS – 35.00 ± 0.00 (–)
NTO 1 2.7 1 3.0 80.00 ± 0.00 (–)
CTO 3 8.1 3 9.1 41.33 ± 22.03 (20–64)
NGA 1 2.7 OS – 72.00 ± 0.00 (–)
CGA 3 8.1 3 9.1 48.67 ± 12.20 (35–58)
Total 37 100 33 100
OS: Opposite side; t: independent-sample t-test value; F: one-way analysis of analysis value; Sig.: Significance value; p > 0.05: not
significant

Table 6: The BMI distribution of patients with various subtypes of PRS according to the combined features of its morphology and extent
Hernias Patients BMI, mean ± SD (range)
PRS type n % n % years CID t- or f-value Sig. (2-tailed) p-value
NWT 31 45.6 27 45.00 22.29 ± 1.70 (19.3–27.5) −1.5867 to 0.5267 t = 1.004 0.3196 >0.05
V-PRS 37 54.4 33 55.00 22.82 ± 2.27 (19.5–31.2)
Total 68 60
SWT 3 8.1 3 9.1 28.63 ± 2.38 (26.5–31.2)
NPT 8 21.6 7 21.2 22.03 ± 1.60 (19.5–23.8)
LPT 7 18.9 7 21.2 21.89 ± 0.80 (20.9–23.2)
LWT 3 8.1 2 6.1 21.55 ± 0.07 (21.5–21.6)
NTO 1 2.7 1 3.0 21.00 ± 0.00 (–) – F 10 26 = 7.616 0 <0.001
CTO 3 8.1 3 9.1 22.53 ± 1.42 (20.9–23.5)
CGA 3 8.1 3 9.1 22.47 ± 0.84 (21.5–23.0)
CMT 1 2.7 1 3.0 23.90 ± 0.00 (–)
CWT 6 16.2 6 18.2 22.77 ± 1.29 (21.1–24.3)
CPT 1 2.7 OS – 23.00 ± 0.00 (–)
NGA 1 2.7 OS – 21.50 ± 0.00 (–)
Total 37 100 33 100
OS: Opposite side; CID: Confidence interval of difference; t: independent-sample t-test value; F: one-way analysis of analysis value;
Sig.: Significance value; p > 0.05: not significant

different (p > 0.05) with respect to the mean age and BMI attenuated (CGA) in 3, CPT in 1, and complete-length
of the patients (Tables 5 and 6). In other words, the PRS musculo-tendinous (CMT) in 1 case of a young student
morphology was not affected by the variations in the age accustomed to regular gymnasium exercises (Tables 5
or BMI of the individuals. and 6).
The five morphological groups (WT, MT, PT, TO, and The 11 subgroups of the variant PRS morphology
GA) of the variant PRS were categorized into further 11 (SWT, LWT, NPT, LPT, NTO, NGA, CWT, CTO, CGA, CPT,
subgroups according to the extent of the PRS (Tables and CMT) were not different significantly (p > 0.05) with
5 and 6). The different morphological subtypes of the respect to the age of the patients (Table 5). However, they
variant PRS (n = 37) included short whole tendinous were different very significantly (p < 0.001) with respect
(SWT) in 3 cases, LWT in 3 (Fig. 8), complete-length to the BMI of the patients. The patients’ mean BMI (28.63
2
whole tendinous (CWT) in 6, NPT in 8, LPT in 7, NTO in ± 2.38 kg/m ) in the short whole (SWT) variant subgroup
1, complete-length thinned out (CTO) in 3, normal-length was much higher as compared with the patients’ mean
2
2
grossly attenuated (NGA) in 1, complete-length grossly BMI (21.00 ± 0.00 kg/m to 23.90 ± 0.00 kg/m ) in the other
18