Comparison of the neurobehavioural profile of early-preterm infants against term and late-preterm infants using the Hammersmith neonatal neurological examination

被引:2
作者
Ong, Wei J. [1 ]
Baral, Vijayendra R. [1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ]
Ereno, Imelda L. [2 ,3 ,4 ]
Sultana, Rehena [1 ]
Yeo, Cheo L. [1 ,2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Duke NUS Med Sch, Singapore, Singapore
[2] Singapore Gen Hosp, Dept Neonatal & Dev Med, 20 Coll Rd, Singapore 169856, Singapore
[3] Natl Univ Singapore, Yong Loo Lin Sch Med, Singapore, Singapore
[4] Nanyang Technol Univ, Lee Kong Chian Sch Med, Singapore, Singapore
关键词
neonatology; neurology; prematurity; NEURODEVELOPMENTAL OUTCOMES; AGE; RISK; CARE;
D O I
10.1111/jpc.16240
中图分类号
R72 [儿科学];
学科分类号
100202 ;
摘要
Aim To compare the neurobehavioural profile of early-preterm infants (<32 weeks gestation) at term-corrected age (39(+0)-41(+6) weeks) versus late-preterm and full-term infants at similar term gestational ages. Methods Early-preterm infants were assessed neurologically at term-corrected age using the Hammersmith neonatal neurological examination. The raw scores of the 34 Hammersmith neonatal neurological examination items were converted to optimality scores. Pairwise comparison of neurobehavioural patterns between early-preterm infants at term-corrected age versus late-preterm and full-term infants at similar gestational ages were made using independent sample t tests. Differences in optimality scores between the three groups were evaluated using one-way analysis of variance. Results Sixty-eight early-preterm infants assessed at term-corrected age were compared against 75 late-preterm infants and 133 full-term infants. Mean total optimality scores (+/- standard deviation) of early-preterm, late-preterm and full-term infants at term-corrected age were 27.68 (+/- 3.97), 29.09 (+/- 2.45) and 31.58 (+/- 1.39), respectively (P < 0.001). The mean optimality score of early-preterm infants was significantly lower when compared pairwise with late-preterm infants and full-term infants with mean difference of -1.42 (P = 0.013) and -3.91 (P < 0.001), respectively. Conclusion The neurobehavioural profile of early-preterm infants lags significantly behind those of late-preterm and full-term infants at term-corrected age. This study also provides reference raw and optimality scores for all items in the Hammersmith neonatal neurological examination for early-preterm infants in a predominantly Asian population.
引用
收藏
页码:72 / 80
页数:9
相关论文
共 24 条
  • [1] ALBERS S, 1994, BIOL NEONATE, V66, P182
  • [2] THE EVOLUTION OF PRIMITIVE REFLEXES IN EXTREMELY PREMATURE-INFANTS
    ALLEN, MC
    CAPUTE, AJ
    [J]. PEDIATRIC RESEARCH, 1986, 20 (12) : 1284 - 1289
  • [3] Waking up too early - the consequences of preterm birth on sleep development
    Bennet, Laura
    Walker, David W.
    Horne, Rosemary S. C.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PHYSIOLOGY-LONDON, 2018, 596 (23): : 5687 - 5708
  • [4] Factors affecting early neurobehavioral and sleep outcomes in preterm infants
    Brandon, DH
    Holditch-Davis, D
    Winchester, DM
    [J]. INFANT BEHAVIOR & DEVELOPMENT, 2005, 28 (02) : 206 - 219
  • [5] Evaluation of neurological behaviour in late-preterm newborn infants using the Hammersmith Neonatal Neurological Examination
    Chin, En Yi Joanne
    Baral, Vijay R.
    Ereno, Imelda L.
    Allen, John C.
    Low, Kelly
    Yeo, Cheo Lian
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PAEDIATRICS AND CHILD HEALTH, 2019, 55 (03) : 349 - 357
  • [6] Conners Lenke M., 2003, NBIN, V3, P104, DOI DOI 10.1016/S1527-3369(03)00032-1
  • [7] An optimality score for the neurologic examination of the term newborn
    Dubowitz, L
    Mercuri, E
    Dubowitz, V
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS, 1998, 133 (03) : 406 - 416
  • [8] Dubowitz L M., 1999, CLIN DEV MED
  • [9] CLINICAL ASSESSMENT OF GESTATIONAL AGE IN NEWBORN INFANT
    DUBOWITZ, LM
    DUBOWITZ, V
    GOLDBERG, C
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS, 1970, 77 (01) : 1 - +
  • [10] Prechtl's assessment of general movements: A diagnostic tool for the functional assessment of the young nervous system
    Einspieler, C
    Prechtl, HFR
    [J]. MENTAL RETARDATION AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES RESEARCH REVIEWS, 2005, 11 (01): : 61 - 67