# Are Electromyography Data a Fingerprint for Patients with Cerebral Palsy (CP)?
## 3 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{3}{*}{**Variable**} & **Gait Quality** & **Gait Quality** & \multirow{3}{*}{**No.**} & \multirow{3}{*}{**Mean (SD)**} & \multirow{3}{*}{**Mean (SD)**} & \multirow{3}{*}{**Between**} & \(p\)**-Value** & \(p\)**-Value** & **Between** & **Between** \\  & **Condition** & & & & & **Between** & & **Good_to_Good** & **Good_to_Mild** \\  & **Before** & **After** & & & & **and** & & **and** & **and** \\  & **Surgery (E1)** & **Surgery (E2)** & & & & & **in E1** & **in E1** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{GDI} & Good & Good & 30 & 72.06 (7.1) & 86.53 (7.8) & **<0.001** & \multirow{3}{*}{0.132} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.345} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.412} \\  & Good & Mild & 30 & 70.08 (7) & 71.55 (3.1) & **0.023** & & & \\  & Good & Poor & 7 & 70.62 (6.7) & 59.72 (3.4) & **0.002** & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{GPS} & Good & Good & 30 & 9.85 (1.7) & 6.94 (1.1) & **<0.001** & \multirow{3}{*}{0.15} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.304} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.488} \\  & Good & Mild & 30 & 10.31 (1.7) & 9.83 (0.8) & **0.021** & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & Good & Poor & 7 & 10.29 (1.6) & 13.35 (1) & **0.002** & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{EDI} & Good & Good & 30 & 82.45 (6.6) & 85.01 (5) & **0.044** & & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & Good & Mild & 30 & 82 (5.4) & 82.78 (5.2) & 0.343 & & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & Good & Poor & 7 & 83.73 (3.5) & 82.11 (3.7) & 0.311 & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{EPS} & Good & Good & 30 & 73.71 (13.5) & 68.13 (9.5) & **0.035** & & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & Good & Mild & 30 & 74.25 (12.7) & 72.19 (11.1) & 0.278 & & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & Good & Poor & 7 & 70.25 (7.1) & 73.36 (7.3) & 0.356 & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{DMC} & Good & Good & 30 & 82.68 (6.9) & 80.91 (7.7) & 0.141 & & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & Good & Mild & 30 & 79.85 (9.7) & 79.8 (8.6) & 0.37 & **0.038** & **0.041** & 0.495 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{1-1}  & Good & Poor & 7 & 78.08 (4) & 76.28 (8.1) & 0.268 & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Comparative analysis of gait and EMG indices among participants with good gait quality at baseline (E1) across responders according to their post-operation gait quality. from 83.73 at E1 to 82.11 at E2, with their DMC being significantly lower than that of Good_to_Good at E1 (78.08 vs. 82.68, \(p\)-value = 0.041). Good responders also had a higher initial level of DMC compared to mild responders (78.95 vs. 82.68, \(p\)-value = 0.038). Further, the changes in EMG for good responders from E1 to E2 were significant, as measured by EDI (\(p\)-value = 0.044) and EPS (\(p\)-value = 0.035). Table 8 also shows the details of the main distal and proximal surgeries for the responders in this study. Dividing the total number of surgeries by the total number of patients for each condition, the average number of surgeries each patient underwent was calculated. To have clinical meaning, we have rounded this number. The better responders with a poor gait (Poor_to_Good) underwent more surgeries (on average 4) than the others (on average 3 and 2). In general, the number of proximal surgeries was relatively higher than distal surgeries for the patients with a better post-operative gait (21 vs. 15 for Poor_to_Good and 25 vs. 23 for Mild_to_Good).