4.6 Article

Neonatal Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Outcome at Age 30 Months in Extremely Preterm Infants

期刊

JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS
卷 160, 期 4, 页码 559-+

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2011.09.053

关键词

-

资金

  1. Swedish Medical Research Council [2006-6151]
  2. Stockholm County Council
  3. Karolinska Institute
  4. Linnea and Josef Carlsson Foundation
  5. Swedish Order of Freemasons
  6. Swedish Medical Society
  7. Jerring Foundation
  8. Sallskapet Bar-navard
  9. EU

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To examine associations between brain white matter abnormalities, including diffuse excessive high signal intensities, detected on neonatal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with neurodevelopmental outcome at age 30 months. Study design This was a prospective, population-based study of infants born at <27 weeks gestation (n = 117) undergoing conventional MRI at term equivalent age (n = 107). At age 30 months corrected, 91 of the preterm infants (78%) and 85 term-born controls were assessed with the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development, Third Edition (BSID-III). Results Cerebral palsy (CP) was present in 7% of the preterm group. On the BSID-III, mean composite scores were 96 +/- 9.5 for the cognitive scale, 97 +/- 14 for language scales, and 103 +/- 15 for motor scales, all within the normal range for age. Compared with the term-born controls, however, the preterminfants did not perform as well on all 3 scales, also when MRI was normal. Significant associations were seen between moderate to severe white matter abnormalities and CP (P < .001). The presence of diffuse excessive high signal intensities was not associated with performance on the BSID-III or with CP. Conclusion This 3-year cohort of extremely preterm infants had low rates of major brain injury and impaired outcome. Neonatal MRI provides useful information, but this information needs to be treated with caution when predicting outcome. (J Pediatr 2012;160:559-66).

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

4.6
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