Literature DB >> 11158467

Positional preference: prevalence in infants and follow-up after two years.

M M Boere-Boonekamp1, L T van der Linden-Kuiper LT.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: 1) To determine the prevalence of positional preference in the general population of infants up to the age of 6 months; 2) to gather information on possible risk factors; 3) to determine the percentage of children with positional preference undergoing diagnostic evaluation and/or treatment; and 4) to assess the overall outcome of positional preference in infants and toddlers, with currently used diagnostic and treatment practices.
SETTING: Infant health care centers in The Netherlands.
METHODS: Seven thousand six hundred nine infants below the age of 6 months were screened for positional preference (cases: n = 623). Anamnestic data and physical signs of asymmetry of the range of motion and the shape of the head were recorded. These data were also registered of an immediate next child visiting the infant health care center with the same sex and about the same age but without positional preference (controls: n = 554). In a first follow-up study, 6 to 8 months after the original study, 468 of the 623 children with positional preference were reexamined for asymmetry of the range of motion and the shape of the head. In a second follow-up study, 24 to 32 months after the original study, 129 of 259 children who still had shown signs of asymmetry in the first follow-up study were again reexamined.
RESULTS: The prevalence of positional preference was 8.2% and was highest in children below 16 weeks of age. The boy:girl ratio was 3:2. Firstborns, premature children, and children with breech position at the time of delivery proved to have a higher risk for positional preference. The supine sleeping position of the child and a strong preference in offering the feeding always from the right or the left side were positively correlated with positional preference. In the first follow-up study, 12% still showed restricted active range of motion, 8% restricted passive range of motion, 47% asymmetric flattening of the occiput, and 23% of the forehead. Thirty-two percent of the children with positional preference had been referred for diagnostical/therapeutical intervention. In the second follow-up study, active range of motion was restricted in 6%, passive rotation in 2%, 45% had an asymmetric flattening of the occiput, and 21% of the forehead.
CONCLUSION: Positional preference is frequently observed (8.2%) in The Netherlands. It leads to referral, additional diagnostics and, if necessary, treatment of almost 1 of every 3 affected children. Extrapolated to the original population in 1995, 2.4% of all children would still have a restricted range of motion and/or flattening of the skull at the age of 2 to 3 years. The high prevalence of positional preference in infancy, the persistency of accompanying signs, the large number of children referred for further diagnostic and/or treatment, and the resulting high medical expenses strongly call for a primary preventive approach.positional preference, deformational plagiocephaly, asymmetry, infants, population-based study.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11158467     DOI: 10.1542/peds.107.2.339

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pediatrics        ISSN: 0031-4005            Impact factor:   7.124


  47 in total

Review 1.  Diagnostic strategies for the evaluation of asymmetry in infancy-a review.

Authors:  Leo A van Vlimmeren; Paul J M Helders; Léon N A van Adrichem; Raoul H H Engelbert
Journal:  Eur J Pediatr       Date:  2004-02-17       Impact factor: 3.183

Review 2.  Neurodevelopmental implications of "deformational" plagiocephaly.

Authors:  Brent Collett; David Breiger; Darcy King; Michael Cunningham; Matthew Speltz
Journal:  J Dev Behav Pediatr       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 2.225

3.  Supine and prone infant positioning: a winning combination.

Authors:  Martha Wilson Jones
Journal:  J Perinat Educ       Date:  2004

Review 4.  Anterior plagiocephaly: epidemiology, clinical findings,diagnosis, and classification. A review.

Authors:  Concezio Di Rocco; Giovanna Paternoster; Massimo Caldarelli; Luca Massimi; Gianpiero Tamburrini
Journal:  Childs Nerv Syst       Date:  2012-08-08       Impact factor: 1.475

Review 5.  Posterior plagiocephaly.

Authors:  Ricky Kalra; Marion L Walker
Journal:  Childs Nerv Syst       Date:  2012-08-08       Impact factor: 1.475

Review 6.  Positional plagiocephaly: what the pediatrician needs to know. A review.

Authors:  Laura Pogliani; Chiara Mameli; Valentina Fabiano; Gian Vincenzo Zuccotti
Journal:  Childs Nerv Syst       Date:  2011-05-26       Impact factor: 1.475

7.  Three-dimensional analysis of cranial and facial asymmetry after helmet therapy for positional plagiocephaly.

Authors:  Myung Chul Lee; Jin Hwang; Yong Oock Kim; Kyu Won Shim; Eun Kyung Park; Dae Hyun Lew; In Sik Yun
Journal:  Childs Nerv Syst       Date:  2015-03-15       Impact factor: 1.475

8.  Age-related differences in cranial sexual dimorphism in contemporary Europe.

Authors:  Jana Velemínská; Nikola Fleischmannová; Barbora Suchá; Jan Dupej; Šárka Bejdová; Anežka Kotěrová; Jaroslav Brůžek
Journal:  Int J Legal Med       Date:  2021-03-01       Impact factor: 2.686

9.  Prevalence and characteristics of positional plagiocephaly in healthy full-term infants at 8-12 weeks of life.

Authors:  Elisa Ballardini; M Sisti; N Basaglia; M Benedetto; A Baldan; C Borgna-Pignatti; G Garani
Journal:  Eur J Pediatr       Date:  2018-07-20       Impact factor: 3.183

10.  The course of positional cranial deformation from 3 to 12 months of age and associated risk factors: a follow-up with 3D imaging.

Authors:  Henri Aarnivala; Ville Vuollo; Virpi Harila; Tuomo Heikkinen; Pertti Pirttiniemi; Lasse Holmström; A Marita Valkama
Journal:  Eur J Pediatr       Date:  2016-09-13       Impact factor: 3.183

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.