OBJECTIVE: To compare growth between adolescents who were born at extremely low birth weight (ELBW, </=1000 g) and adolescents who were born at normal birth weight (NBW, >/=2500 g). DESIGN/ METHODS: Cross-sectional design. Fifty-three ELBW and 53 NBW adolescents without a major neurodevelopmental disability were matched by sex, race, age, and socioeconomic status. Anthropometrics (z scores), bone age, body composition (Lunar DPX-L densitometry), and sexual maturity were assessed. ELBW adolescents were classified as being born small for gestational age (SGA) or not (NSGA). RESULTS: Subjects were 58.5% female, 43.4% black, and 56.6% white. The mean birth weight for ELBW subjects was 849 g and 3355 g for NBW subjects. The mean age was 14.85 years. On average, ELBW adolescents were 4.8 cm shorter and 9.1 kg lighter than NBW adolescents. ELBW adolescents had lower mean z scores for height (P <.0001), weight (P <.0001), and head circumference (P <.0001) than NBW adolescents. ELBW/SGA subjects had lower mean z scores for height (P <.0001) and weight (P =.001) than NBW subjects. Head circumference z scores were lower for the ELBW/SGA group than the ELBW/NSGA group or the NBW group (P =. 003). Sexual maturity and relative body composition were similar between groups. Bone age, measured in SD units, was more advanced in the ELBW group (0.86 vs. 0.42, P =.039). CONCLUSIONS: ELBW adolescents who survive without a major neurodevelopmental disability attain lower growth measurements compared with NBW adolescents but have similar sexual maturation and relative body composition.
OBJECTIVE: To compare growth between adolescents who were born at extremely low birth weight (ELBW, </=1000 g) and adolescents who were born at normal birth weight (NBW, >/=2500 g). DESIGN/ METHODS: Cross-sectional design. Fifty-three ELBW and 53 NBW adolescents without a major neurodevelopmental disability were matched by sex, race, age, and socioeconomic status. Anthropometrics (z scores), bone age, body composition (Lunar DPX-L densitometry), and sexual maturity were assessed. ELBW adolescents were classified as being born small for gestational age (SGA) or not (NSGA). RESULTS: Subjects were 58.5% female, 43.4% black, and 56.6% white. The mean birth weight for ELBW subjects was 849 g and 3355 g for NBW subjects. The mean age was 14.85 years. On average, ELBW adolescents were 4.8 cm shorter and 9.1 kg lighter than NBW adolescents. ELBW adolescents had lower mean z scores for height (P <.0001), weight (P <.0001), and head circumference (P <.0001) than NBW adolescents. ELBW/SGA subjects had lower mean z scores for height (P <.0001) and weight (P =.001) than NBW subjects. Head circumference z scores were lower for the ELBW/SGA group than the ELBW/NSGA group or the NBW group (P =. 003). Sexual maturity and relative body composition were similar between groups. Bone age, measured in SD units, was more advanced in the ELBW group (0.86 vs. 0.42, P =.039). CONCLUSIONS: ELBW adolescents who survive without a major neurodevelopmental disability attain lower growth measurements compared with NBW adolescents but have similar sexual maturation and relative body composition.
Authors: V Pampanini; A Boiani; C De Marchis; C Giacomozzi; R Navas; R Agostino; F Dini; P Ghirri; S Cianfarani Journal: Eur J Pediatr Date: 2014-06-24 Impact factor: 3.183
Authors: Martijn J J Finken; Bibian van der Voorn; Jonneke J Hollanders; Charlotte A Ruys; Marita de Waard; Johannes B van Goudoever; Joost Rotteveel Journal: Ann Nutr Metab Date: 2017-03-17 Impact factor: 3.374
Authors: Emma C Reilly; Kyle C Martin; Guang-bi Jin; Min Yee; Michael A O'Reilly; B Paige Lawrence Journal: Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol Date: 2014-11-07 Impact factor: 5.464
Authors: Roberto Murgas Torrazza; Agus Suryawan; Maria C Gazzaneo; Renán A Orellana; Jason W Frank; Hanh V Nguyen; Marta L Fiorotto; Samer El-Kadi; Teresa A Davis Journal: J Nutr Date: 2010-10-20 Impact factor: 4.798
Authors: K A I Evensen; T Vik; J Helbostad; M S Indredavik; S Kulseng; A-M Brubakk Journal: Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 5.747