4.5 Article

Neurodevelopmental and Behavioral Outcome of Very Low Birth Weight Babies at Corrected Age of 2 Years

Journal

INDIAN JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS
Volume 77, Issue 9, Pages 963-967

Publisher

ALL INDIA INST MEDICAL SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1007/s12098-010-0149-3

Keywords

Cerebral palsy; Behavioral outcome; MeDQ; MoDQ; Neurodevelopment; Very low birth weight babies

Categories

Funding

  1. PGI Research scheme

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Neurodevelopmental and behavioral assessment of very low birth weight babies (VLBW) at corrected age (CA) of 2 years. 127, 110, 99 and 101 babies a parts per thousand currency sign34 weeks and a parts per thousand currency sign1500 g were followed at CA of 3, 6, 9, 12 months respectively for developmental and neurological assessment. DASII (Developmental assessment scale for Indian infants) was used at CA of 18 months and preschool behavioural checklist (PBCL) at CA 2 years. Of 101 VLBW babies available for follow up at CA 1 year, 3 (3%) babies had Cerebral Palsy (CP) and 3% (n = 3) had suspect abnormality (mild hypotonia), 11% (n = 11) had gross motor and 8% (n = 8) had language abnormality. Their mean mental (MeDQ) and motor (MoDQ) quotients were 80.4 +/- 10.7 and 77.2 +/- 13.3 and a score of < 70 was found in 17% (MeDQ) and 25.7% (MoDQ) VLBW babies. High PBCL score (mean 16.8 +/- 5.4) was seen in 84%VLBW babies. On subgroup analysis, 2 babies (5%) in subgroup1 ( n = 54, a parts per thousand currency sign1200 g,) and 1 (1.6%) in subgroup 2 (n = 78, 1201-1500 g) had CP. Twelve (29%) in subgroup 1 had significant language delay (p = 0.004) as compared to 4 (15%) in subgroup 2 at 1 year. BSID and PBCL scores were comparable. Amongst ELBW babies (< 1000 g), 6.6% (n = 1) had CP, 25% (n = 3) and 42% (n = 5) had low MeDQ and MoDQ respectively and all of them had high PBCL score. AGA and SGA had similar outcome. VLBW babies need close and longer follow up due to high risk of neurodevelopmental and behavioral abnormality.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available