Skip to main content

Table 3 Preoperative characteristics distributed by clinical-pathogenetic aspects

From: The impact of thymectomy in subgroups of Myasthenia gravis patients: a single center longitudinal observation

 

Total (n = 94)

EOMG (n = 45)

LOMG (n = 28)

TAMG (n = 21)

p-value

Age (years)

     
 

45.8 ± 19.6

31.1 ± 12.2

59.8 ± 13.7

58.6 ± 16.7

< 0.001

Female (%)

     
 

62.8

75.6

42.9

61.9

0.018

BMI (kg/m2)

     
 

27.4 ± 6.7

25.0 ± 4.9

30.3 ± 9.0

28.4 ± 4.9

0.003

Surgical appr. (%)

    

0.002

 Sternotomy

22.3

20

7.1

47.6

 

 MIC

77.7

80

92.9

52.4

 

Preop. MGFA (%)

    

0.051

 I

16

18.2

14.3

15.8

 

 IIA

36.2

47.7

32.1

21.1

 

 IIB

21.1

18.2

25.0

26.3

 

 IIIA

7.4

11.4

10.7

0

 

 IIIB

5.3

2.3

7.1

10.5

 

 IVA

5.3

0

7.1

15.1

 

 IVB

3.2

2.3

0

10.5

 

 V

1.1

0

3.6

0

 

Preop. Antib. (%)

     

 AchR

78.7

68.9

92.9

81

0.05

 Titin

21.8

2.8

28.0

52.9

< 0.001

 MuSK

3.8

2.7

3.6

6.3

0.83

Preop. Med. (%)

     

 Pyridostigmin

84.0

88.9

85.7

71.4

0.19

 Cortison

72.3

68.9

85.7

61.9

0.14

 Other

27.7

22.2

42.9

19

0.98

  1. Age:
  2. Bonferroni-corrected post-hoc analysis revealed a significant difference between age of the EOMG-group and the LOMG-group (p < 0.001; MDiff = 28.7, 95%-CI [20.6,36.8]) and the EOMG-group and the TAMG-group (p < 0.001; MDiff = 27.1, 95%-CI [18.7,36.4]) but not between the LOMG-group and the TAMG-group (p = 1.0; MDiff = 1.2, 95%-CI [-8.5,10.9])
  3. Female gender:
  4. Bonferroni-corrected post-hoc analysis revealed a significant difference between presence of female gender in the EOMG-group and the LOMG-group (p = 0.014; MDiff = 0.33, 95%-CI [0.05,0.6])
  5. BMI:
  6. Bonferroni-corrected post-hoc analysis revealed a significant difference between BMI in the EOMG-group and the LOMG-group (p = 0.003; MDiff = 5.33, 95%-CI [1.5,8.9])
  7. Titin:
  8. Bonferroni-corrected post-hoc analysis revealed a significant difference of preoperative presence of Titin antibodies in EOMG-group compared to LOMG-group (p = 0.032; MDiff = 0.252, 95%-CI [0.02,0.49]) and TAMG-group (p < 0.001; MDiff = 5.02, 95%-CI [0.24,0.77]), but not between LOMG-group and TAMG-group (p = 0.105; MDiff = 0.249, 95%-CI [-0.04,0.53]