As shown in , there were no significant differences in the height, weight, BMI, or BMI-percentile adjusted for age (
32) between the paraplegic group and its gender-, age-, and BMI-matched controls. There were also no significant differences in age, height, and weight between the tetraplegia group and the CTRL group. However, the tetraplegia group had a significantly lower BMI and significantly lower BMI-percentile adjusted for age than the CTRL group. This occurred because 6 of the 10 subjects with tetraplegia had a BMI that was less than the second percentile when adjusted for age and gender.
| Table 1Physical Characteristics of Children and Adolescents With Spinal Cord Injury and Controls* |
The regional and total body composition measures obtained by DXA are shown in . The subjects in the paraplegia group had 38% less lean tissue mass in the legs (P < 0.0001) and 11% less lean tissue mass in the trunk (P < 0.003) than the CTRL group did. These losses resulted in an 18% reduction in total body lean tissue mass (P < 0.0001). The lean tissue mass of every region—arms, legs, trunk, and total body—was significantly less in the tetraplegia group than the CTRL group. The tetraplegia group had 35% less lean tissue mass in the arms (P < 0.0001), 37% less lean tissue mass in the legs (P < 0.0001), and 26% less lean tissue mass in the trunk (P < 0.0001), resulting in a 29% loss of lean tissue mass in the total body (P < 0.0001). The tetraplegia group had 36% less lean tissue mass in the arms (P < 0.0001) and 16% less lean tissue mass in the trunk (P < 0.05) than the paraplegia group did.
| Table 2Regional and Total Body Composition Results* |
The BMC of the paraplegia group was 40% lower in the legs (P < 0.0001), while there were no significant differences in the arms or trunk as compared to the CTRL group. As a result, the total BMC of the paraplegia group was 16% lower than that of the CTRL group (P < 0.0001). The tetraplegia group had significantly less BMC in the arms (−25%; P < 0.0001), legs (−46%; P < 0.0001), and trunk (−30%; P < 0.0001) as compared to the CTRL group. The tetraplegia group had significantly less BMC in the arms (−33%; P < 0.002) and trunk (−30%; P < 0.004) as compared to the paraplegia group.
There were no differences between the slopes of the regression between lean tissue mass and BMC in the paraplegia group and the tetraplegia group, when examined as the total lean tissue or by each region. As shown in , the total lean tissue was highly correlated to the total bone mineral content in the SCI group (paraplegia and tetraplegia groups combined) and CTRL group. However, the slope of the regression between lean tissue mass and BMC was significantly higher in the CTRL group as compared to the SCI group (). This increased slope was also significant for each of the regions. The arm lean tissue mass was positively related to arm BMC in the SCI group (r = 0.84) and CTRL group (r = 0.89). The leg lean tissue mass was positively related to total BMC in the SCI group (r =0.74) and CTRL group (r = 0.88). The trunk lean tissue mass was positively related to trunk BMC in the SCI group (r = 0.71) and CTRL group (r = 0.87).
The paraplegia group had 28% more fat mass in the legs (P < 0.02), 35% more fat mass in the trunk (P < 0.04), and no significant difference in fat mass in the arms as compared to the CTRL group. Although the tetraplegia group had lower fat mass in the arms, legs, trunk, and total body than the CTRL group, the variance in the tetraplegia group was so large that these differences were not significant. The paraplegia group had 38% more fat in the legs and 39% more total body fat than the tetraplegia group did.
As a result of the loss in lean muscle tissue in the leg and trunk and the increase in total fat mass in the leg and trunk, the paraplegia group had a 36% higher trunk fat percentage (P < 0.001), a 60% higher leg fat percentage (P < 0.0001), and a 37% higher total body fat percentage (P < 0.0001) as compared the CTRL group (). No differences in percent fat were observed in the arms. Although the arm fat percentage, trunk fat percentage, and total body fat percentage were higher in the tetraplegia group than the CTRL group, the variances were so large that these differences were not significant. Despite the large variance, the tetraplegia group had a significantly lower leg fat percentage than did the paraplegia group.
The changes in body composition observed in the subjects with SCI had profound effects on the relationship between BMI and total fat percentage as compared to the CTRL subjects, although there were no differences between the paraplegia and tetraplegia groups. Results from the analysis of covariance revealed that the percent total fat observed in the SCI group was significantly higher at any BMI as compared to the control group (P < 0.0001). This analysis resulted in an average of 38% ± 4% more fat tissue per unit BMI in the SCI group compared with the control group ().
To determine the optimal cutoff points for BMI corresponding to the criterion value (percent trunk fat by DXA), a receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve was generated (). The BMI that maximized the sensitivity and specificity corresponding to percent trunk fat of ≥30% in male subjects and ≥35% in female subjects was 25 kg/m2 in the control group and 19 kg/m2 in the SCI group. shows the sensitivity (true-positive rate) and specificity (true-negative rate) used to create the ROC analysis. The area under the curve was 0.962 for the control group and 0.887 for the SCI group, which shows that BMI is a good predictor of obesity in both groups as long as optimal cutoff points are used.
| Table 3Receiver Operator Curve Analysis for Prediction of Central Obesity* |