ESPE Abstracts

Objective: This study aim ed to investigate the effect of height on the quality of life in boys with delayed puberty and to compare the groups of boys with delayed puberty depending on height SDS among themselves.

Design, Patients, and Measurement: A total of 17 boys with delayed puberty (average age 14.3 ± 1.08) were included.

Study design: depending on height SDS, there were 2 groups of patients: height SDS up to -2.0 SD (n = 9) and height SDS -2.0 SD and below (n = 8). The groups were comparable in age (mean age 14.4±1.24 vs. 14.4±0.92 years, P = 0.898). All boys were examined for the stage of puberty according to the Tanner scale and anthropometric indicators (height, height SDS). A questionnaire was applied to evaluate the psychosocial characteristics that would affect the quality of life of adolescents. The ‘Pediatric Quality of Life (PedsQL)’ was used to assess the quality of life. The questionnaire is presented in the form of four sections describing situations that may present difficulties for a teenager: physical functioning, emotional functioning, social functioning, and life at school (two integral indicators were calculated: total score and psychosocial functioning). A decrease in the quality of life in each section is a score <80.

Results: In the first group, only one indicator of social functioning exceeded 80; in the second group, all indicators except the physical functioning indicator were below 80. Also, the physical functioning indicator in the first group was significantly lower than in the second group. Other indicators did not differ significantly between groups: physical functioning (78.13; IQR [68.75-87.5] vs 89.10; IQR [81.26-93.75]; P = 0.046); emotional functioning (62.22 ±18.56; 95% CI 47.96-76.49 vs 65.63 ±16.35; 51.95-79.30; P = 0.696); social functioning (90.00; IQR [60.00-95.00] vs 72.50 IQR [65.00-85.00]; P = 0.606), life at school (55.56 ±19.91; 95% CI 40 .25-70.86 vs 65.00 ±17.93; 50.01-79.99; P = 0.323), total score (65.73 ±20.24; 95% CI 50.17-81.29 vs 72 .44 ±11.81; 62.57-83.32; P = 0.425), psychosocial functioning (64.25 ±19.84; 95% CI 49.00-79.50 vs 67.28 ±14.47; 55, 19-79.38; P = 0.727).

Conclusion: Although the scale scores were lower in both groups, there is no correlation between anthropometric indicators (height) and quality of life indicators. Further studies are required, as in both groups the patients had varying severity and height differences.