4.3 Article

Prevention of deformational plagiocephaly in neonates

期刊

EARLY HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
卷 87, 期 8, 页码 537-543

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2011.04.007

关键词

Skull; Newborn; Sensory motor performance; Sudden infant death syndrome; Craniosynostoses

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Since the early 90s a striking rise in deformational plagiocephaly (DP) has been reported, and a causal link between the back to sleep position recommended to reduce the risk of sudden infant death syndrome. Recent data suggested that supine position is a risk factor only when combined with other environmental factors Objective: To evaluate the impact of early intervention in the newborn environment on the prevalence of DP at 4 months of life. Methods: A multicentric, prospective, controlled study in healthy term neonates. Within 72 h of birth, all parents received the usual recommendations for positioning their infants to prevent sudden infant death syndrome. In the Intervention group, recommendations were also given to encourage spontaneous and unhindered physical movement. At 1.2 and 4 months, we looked for plagiocephaly and collected information on the infants' environment. Results: The environment of the Intervention group (n = 88) was significantly more favorable to unhindered movement than in the control group (n = 51) (lower immobility score, p<0.01). The prevalence of DP was significantly lower in the Intervention group than in the control group (13% vs. 31%, p<0.001). For each supplementary hour of immobility during the third and fourth months of life, the risk of DP at four months doubled (OR:2.1[1.4-3.2]). Conclusion: Early postnatal intervention on the maternity ward reduces the prevalence of DI'. The recent rise in the incidence of DP could be related to a lack of stimulation and encouragement to physical movement rather than to supine positioning proposed for prevention of sudden infant death syndrome. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据