4.6 Article

Tactile/kinesthetic stimulation (TKS) increases tibial speed of sound and urinary osteocalcin (U-MidOC and unOC) in premature infants (29-32 weeks PMA)

期刊

BONE
卷 51, 期 4, 页码 661-666

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.bone.2012.07.016

关键词

Speed of Sound (SOS); Osteocalcin; Pyridinium crosslinks; Infant massage; Preterm

资金

  1. NIH-NCCAM
  2. [1F32AT005568-01]
  3. [AT004185-01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Preterm delivery (<37 weeks post-menstrual age) is associated with suboptimal bone mass. We hypothesized that tactile/kinesthetic stimulation (TICS), a form of infant massage that incorporates kinesthetic movement, would increase bone strength and markers of bone accretion in preterm infants. Preterm, AGA infants (29-32 weeks) were randomly assigned to TICS (N=20) or Control (N=20). Twice daily TKS was provided 6 days per week for 2 weeks. Control infants received the same care without TKS treatment. Treatment was masked to parents, health care providers, and study personnel. Baseline and week two measures were collected for tibial speed of sound (tSOS, m/sec), a surrogate for bone strength, by quantitative ultrasound (Sunlight8000) and urine markers of bone metabolism, pyridinium crosslinks and osteocalcin (U-MidOC and unOC). Infant characteristics at birth and study entry as well as energy/nutrient intake were similar between TICS and Control. TKS intervention attenuated the decrease in tSOS observed in Control infants (p<0.05). Urinary pyridinium crosslinks decreased over time in both TICS and CTL (p<0.005). TICS infants experienced greater increases in urinary osteocalcin (U-MidOC, p<0.001 and unOC, p<0.05). We conclude that TKS improves bone strength in premature infants by attenuating the decrease that normally follows preterm birth. Further, biomarkers of bone metabolism suggest a modification in bone turnover in TICS infants in favor of bone accretion. Taken together, we speculate that TKS improves bone mineralization. (C) 2012 Elsevier Inc. 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

4.6
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