medigraphic.com
ISSN 1665-3254 (Print)
Revista Oficial de la Universidad Biomédica Rafael Guízar y Valencia A. C.

2005, Number 1-2

<< Back Next >>

Plasticidad y Restauración Neurológica 2005; 4 (1-2)

Prediction of neurological sequel to the year of age in premature children evaluated with the evolutionary exam of the behavior

Zanabria SM, Aguilar RF, Méndez RI

Language: Spanish
References: 17
Page: 13-20
PDF size: 121.16 Kb.


ABSTRACT

The variations in the muscular tone in premature child of high risk were observed during the evaluation of the evolution development by Arnold Gesell with the purpose of establishment the impact in the quotients of development and to establish the possibility of early detection of neurological sequels of perinatal origin between the instrument being considered the correction or not of age. Sixty eight premature patients with diagnoses to the birth of perinatal neurological damage were studied longitudinally, evaluated of 0 to 3 months with the instrument of A. Gesell, using 2 criteria of qualification: Gesell Weeks and Gesell Hyper-Hypotonic Days. The objective was to determine the criterion with better prediction of neurological sequel to the year of age considering the correction or not of age by the premature child. The relative risks were calculated, making the cut to 60% of the qualifications in the development. The data showed that the Gesell criterion Hyper-Hypotonic Days without correction of age detected the risk to sequel with a RR of 3.5 p ‹ 0.001, in addition, this criterion obtained the highest points of sensitivity (0.57), specificity (0.92) and in predictive values positive and negative (0.84 and 0.75 respectively). These work demonstrated that considering the presence of the Hypertone-Hipotone signs, improves the detection of the risk to sequel in the evaluation of the development (Gesell). Nevertheless, it shows inefficiency in the prediction of cases that presented/displayed sequel, because there was great number of negatives false reported. Therefore, which studied requires establishing new indicators and instruments of evaluation that allow improving the predictive capacity of the neurological sequels


REFERENCES

  1. Jeng SF, Yau KT, Teng RJ. Neurobehavioral development atterm in very low-birthweight infants and normal term in-fants in Taiwan. Early Hum Dev 1998; 51:235-245.

  2. Mancini MC, Paixáo ML, Gontijo AB, Ferreira AA. Perfil dodesenvolvimiento neuromotor do bebé de alto risco noprimeiro ano de vida. Temas sobre Desenvolvimiento1992;8:3-8.

  3. Mancini MC, Vieira FL. Desenvolvimiento motor em criançasnascidas com baixo peso: uma revisáo da literatura. Temassobre Desenvolvimiento 2000;9:21-24.

  4. D’Eugenio DB, Slagle TA, Mettelman BB, Gross SJ. Develo-pmental outcome of preterm infants with transient neuro-motor abnormalities. AJDC 1993;147:570-574.

  5. Foulder-Hughes LA, Cooke RWI. Motor, cognitive, and be-havioral disorders in children born very preterm. Dev Me-dicine Child Neurol 2003;45:97-103.

  6. Goyen TA, Lui K, Woods R. Visual-motor, visual-perceptualand fine motor outcomes in very-low-birthweight childrenat 5 years. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology1998;40:76-81.

  7. Stewar A, Hope PL, Hamilton P, de L Costello AM, BaudinJ, Bradford B, Amiel-Tisón C, Reynolds EOR. Predictionin very preterm infants of satisfactory neurodevelopmen-tal progress at 12 months. Dev Med Child Neurol1988;30:53-63.

  8. Harris SR, Langkamp DL. Predictive value of the Bayley Men-tal Scale in the early detection of cognitive delays in high-risk infants. Journal of Perinatology 1994;XIV:275-279.

  9. Zanabria M, Muñoz-Ledo P, Cravioto J, Sánchez C, Méndez I.Examen de la conducta en el primer trimestre de vida y predicción de secuela neurológica al año de edad. Bol MedHosp Infant Mex 1995;52:77-85.

  10. Knoblock H, Pasamanick B. Diagnóstico del desarrollo nor-mal y anormal del niño. México, Ed. Paidós, Colección psi-cométrica y psicodiagnóstico, 1975.

  11. Cravioto J, Robles B. The influence of protein-calorie mal-nutrition on psychological Test behaviour, First SymposiumSwedish Nutrition foundation, Sweden, Bastad and Gote-borg. 1963:115-126.

  12. Cravioto J, De Licardie E, Brich H. Nutrition, growth andneurointegrative development: an experimental and ecolo-gic study. Pediatrics 1966;38:319-372.

  13. De Licardie E, Brich H, Cravioto J. Desarrollo motor yadaptativo en niños guatemaltecos recién nacidos a térmi-no. Memorias de la XXII Reunión Reglamentaria de la Asociación de Investigación Pediátrica, A.C. 1966:86-97.

  14. Capurro H. Simplified meted diagnosis of gestational age inthe newborn infant. Pediatrics 1978;93:120-122.

  15. Gesell A, Amatruda C. Diagnóstico del desarrollo normal yanormal del niño. evaluación y manejo del desarrollo neu-ropsicológico normal y anormal del niño pequeño y el pre-escolar. Revisión y actualización de Knobloch H. y Pasama-nick B. México: Editorial Paidós, 1975:543.

  16. Amiel-Tison C. Valoración neurológica del recién nacido ydel lactante. Barcelona, Editorial Masson S.A. 1984:122.

  17. Largo RH, Graf S, Kundu S, Hunziker U, Molinari L. Predic-ting developmental outcome at school age from infant testof normal, at risk and retarded infants. Dev Med Child Neu-rol 1990;32:30-45.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com