Results

Statistical analysis

IBM SPSS software package version 20.0. (Armonk, NY: IBM

Corp) was used to analyze the data. Qualitative data were described using
number and percent. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to verify the
normality of distribution and the quantitative data were described using
range (minimum and maximum), mean, standard deviation, median and
interquartile range (IQR). Significance of the obtained results was judged
at the 5% level.

The used tests were:

1. Chi-square test:
For categorical variables, to compare between different groups

2. F-test (ANOVA):
For normally distributed quantitative variables, to compare between more
than two groups, and Post Hoc test (Tukey) for pairwise comparisons

3. Pearson coefficient:
To correlate between two normally distributed quantitative variables

I. Demographic data
Table (1) summarizes the comparison between the three studied
groups according to demographic data: eighteen patients ranged in age
between 17.0 – 34.0 years with a mean age of 25.0 ± 5.25 years for group
I, eighteen patients ranged in age between 18.0 – 42.0 years with a mean
age of 25.50 ± 5.85 years for group II and eighteen patients ranged in age
between 19.0 – 34.0 years with a mean age of 26.78 ± 4.47 years for group
III. There was a statistically non-significant difference between the three
groups regarding to the mean of age. Group I had 6 males and 12 females,
group II had 7 males and 11 females while group III had 5 males and 13
females. There was a statistically non-significant difference between

53
 Results

gender distributions in the three groups. In relation to the direction of the

growth pattern; the mean SN-MP was 42.16 ± 2.89 for group I, 34.68 ±
1.78 for group II, and 25.61 ± 1.16 for group III. There was a statistically
significant difference between the three groups. These results related to
SN-MP are represented in Figure (11).

Table (1): Comparison between the three studied groups according to demographic data

Group I Group II Group III Test of

P
(n = 18) (n = 18) (n = 18) Sig.
Gender
Male 6 (33.3%) 7 (38.9%) 5 (27.8%) χ2=
0.779
Female 12 (66.7%) 11 (61.1%) 13 (72.2%) 0.500
Age (years)
Min. – Max. 17.0 – 34.0 18.0 – 42.0 19.0 – 34.0
F=
Mean ± SD. 25.0 ± 5.25 25.50 ± 5.85 26.78 ± 4.47 0.577
0.555
Median 24.0 25.50 27.50
SN-MP
Min. – Max. 38.50 – 48.50 31.40 – 37.0 23.20 – 26.80
Mean ± SD. 42.16 ± 2.89 34.68 ± 1.78 25.61 ± 1.16 F=
<0.001*
288.707*
Median
40.85 34.85 25.90

2: Chi square test

F: F for ANOVA test, pairwise comparison bet. Each 2 groups were done using Post
Hoc Test (Tukey)

Group I: High Angle

Group II: Average Angle
Group III: Low Angle

54
 Results

50
Mean angular value of

40

30
SN-MP

20

10

0
Group I Group II Group III

Figure (11): Comparison between the three studied groups according to SN-MP

Group I: High Angle

Group II: Average Angle
Group III: Low Angle

55
 Results

II. Sella measurements

Regarding Length (mm), Depth (mm), and Diameter (mm) of sella

measurements, there was a statistically non-significant difference between
the three groups (p=0.443, 0.669, and 0.772 respectively). The Length
(mm), Depth (mm), and Diameter (mm) of sella measurements showed no
difference in all groups. Regarding Volume of sella, there was a
statistically non-significant difference between the three groups (p=0.836).
A comparison between the three studied groups according to sella
measurements and volume was represented in Table (2) and plotted in
Figure (12) and Figure (13) respectively.

Table (2): Comparison between the three studied groups according to sella measurements and volume

Sella Group I Group II Group III

F p
Measurements (n = 18) (n = 18) (n = 18)
Length (mm)
Min. – Max. 8.70 – 12.50 8.70 – 14.30 9.30 – 13.70
Mean ± SD. 11.03 ± 1.0 11.35 ± 1.38 10.84 ± 1.18 0.826 0.443
Median 11.05 11.05 10.70
Depth (mm)
Min. – Max. 7.0 – 11.10 7.10 – 10.60 7.40 – 10.90
Mean ± SD. 9.05 ± 1.10 8.77 ± 0.91 8.97 ± 0.90 0.406 0.669
Median 9.05 8.85 8.90
Diameter (mm)
Min. – Max. 11.40 – 14.80 11.20 – 15.50 10.60 – 15.90
Mean ± SD. 12.98 ± 1.06 12.89 ± 1.26 12.68 ± 1.44 0.261 0.772
Median 13.0 12.75 12.35
Volume
Min. – Max. 845.9 – 1856.3 848.3 – 1922.3 830.3 – 2092.1
Mean ± SD. 1306.6 ± 290.3 1300.9 ± 331.4 1249.7 ± 319.1 0.179 0.836
Median 1256.0 1249.5 1230.4

F: F for ANOVA test

p: p value for comparing between the studied groups

Group I: High Angle

Group II: Average Angle
Group III: Low Angle

56
 Results

16
Group 1
Group I Group
Group 2II Group III
Group 3
Mrean of sella measurements (mm)

14

12

10

0
Length
Length Depth
Depth Diameter
Diameter
Figure (12): Comparison between the three studied groups according to sella measurements

Group I Group II Group III

Figure (13): Comparison between the three studied groups according to sella volume

57
 Results

III. Sella morphology

Regarding sellar morphology, there was a statistically non-

significant difference between the three groups (p=0.086). The results
showed that sella turcica was oval in the majority of subjects in group I,
round in group II, and oval in group III and these results were represented
in Table (3) and Figure (14).

Table (3): Comparison between the three studied groups according to sellar morphology

Group I Group II Group III

Sellar morphology χ2 p
(n = 18) (n = 18) (n = 18)
Flattened 4 (22.2%) 6 (33.3%) 5 (27.8%)
Oval 12 (66.7%) 4 (22.2%) 7 (38.9%) 8.161 0.086
Round 2 (11.1%) 8 (44.4%) 6 (33.3%)

2: Chi square test

p: p value for comparing between the studied groups

Figure (14): Comparison between the three studied groups according to sellar morphology

Group I: High Angle

Group II: Average Angle
Group III: Low Angle

58
 Results

IV. Correlation

Table (4) summarizes correlation between SN-MP with sella

measurements and volume in each group: there was a statistically non-
significant correlation regarding Length (mm) and Depth (mm) with SN-
MP. Regarding Diameter (mm), there was a statistically significant
positive correlation with SN-MP in group I. As the SN-MP increases; the
diameter (mm) of sella increases and this positive correlation was
represented in Figure (15). Regarding Volume, there was a statistically
non-significant positive correlation with SN-MP in all groups.

Table (4): Correlation between SN-MP with sella measurements and volume in each group

SN-MP
Group I Group II Group III
(n = 18) (n = 18) (n = 18)
r 0.289 -0.016 0.056
Length (mm)
p 0.244 0.949 0.826
r -0.023 -0.082 0.081
Depth (mm)
p 0.928 0.746 0.749
r 0.539 0.026 0.193
Diameter (mm)
p 0.021* 0.919 0.443
r 0.314 0.007 0.179
Volume
p 0.205 0.977 0.477

r: Pearson coefficient
*: Statistically significant at p ≤ 0.05

Group I: High Angle

Group II: Average Angle
Group III: Low Angle

59
 Results

50
r = 0.539*
48 p = 0.021*

46

44
SN-MP angular value

42

40

38

36
11.0 11.5 12.0 12.5 13.0 13.5 14.0 14.5 15.0
Diameter (mm)

Figure (15): Correlation between SN-MP angular value with Diameter (mm) in each group

V. Relation

Table (5) summarizes the relation between the means of SN-MP

in each group which indicates the direction of growth pattern with the
sellar morphology in each group. There was a statistically non-
significant correlation regarding sellar morphology with SN-MP mean
values. Sella turcica was oval in the majority of subjects in group I,
round in group II, and oval in group III. These results are clearly
represented in Figure (16).

60
 Results

Table (5): Relation between SN-MP mean values with sellar morphology in each group.

SN-MP
Sellar morphology N F p
Min. – Max. Mean ± SD. Median
Group I
Flattened 4 40.50 – 47.60 44.18 ± 2.94 44.30
Oval 12 38.50 – 48.50 41.86 ± 2.83 40.85 1.804 0.199
Round 2 39.30 – 40.50 39.90 ± 0.85 39.90
Group II
Flattened 6 31.40 – 36.70 34.82 ± 2.03 35.40
Oval 4 32.50 – 37.0 35.05 ± 1.91 35.35 0.193 0.827
Round 8 32.10 – 36.70 34.39 ± 1.72 34.20
Group III
Flattened 5 23.20 – 26.80 25.82 ± 1.49 26.20
Oval 7 23.40 – 26.20 25.0 ± 1.06 25.50 1.833 0.194
Round 6 24.90 – 26.80 26.13 ± 0.72 26.25

F: F for ANOVA test

p: p value for association between SN-MP mean values and sellar morphology

Group I: High Angle

Group II: Average Angle
Group III: Low Angle

61
 Results

50
Flattened Oval Round
45

40

35
Mean of SN-MP angular value

30

25

20

15

10

0
Group 1I
Group Group 2II
Group GroupIII
Group 3

Figure (16): Relation between SN-MP mean angular values with sellar morphology in each group.

Group I: High Angle

Group II: Average Angle
Group III: Low Angle

62