Hilary E A Whyte1, Susan Blaser. 1. Department of Paediatrics, Division of Neonatology, University of Toronto, 555 University Ave, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. hilary.whyte@sickkids.ca
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Preterm births are increasing in number and while the rates of cerebral palsy have declined, there are increasing numbers of infants who survive with handicaps. In some studies, up to 50 % of children will have morbidity when followed up to school age. METHODS: A review of current literature was conducted to determine the validity of routine cranial ultrasound scans (CUS) to predict neurodevelopmental outcomes, including motor and cognitive deficits. We also reviewed the additional benefit offered by including MRI scans in scanning protocols to enhance the reliability in predicting the neurodevelopmental sequelae of prematurity. RESULTS: CUS is valuable as a screening tool to determine significant brain injury when conducted regularly over the first weeks of life in preterm infants. Subtle changes on CUS are difficult to interpret and more precise information is offered by performing MRI scans. These are most often carried out at term equivalent age but earlier scans may be just as useful in predicting neurocognitive outcomes. When MRI scans are either normal or seriously abnormal, there is a very clear correlation with outcome to 2 years of age. Mild and moderate degrees of injury defined on MRI need more sophisticated scanning sequences to determine the likelihood of associated sequelae. Follow-up to school age is essential to diagnose more subtle cognitive delays. CONCLUSION: CUS provides a good screening tool to detect serious brain injury resulting in motor handicaps but MRI scans are complementary and necessary to accurately predict the outcomes of preterm infants, especially cognitive delays.
INTRODUCTION: Preterm births are increasing in number and while the rates of cerebral palsy have declined, there are increasing numbers of infants who survive with handicaps. In some studies, up to 50 % of children will have morbidity when followed up to school age. METHODS: A review of current literature was conducted to determine the validity of routine cranial ultrasound scans (CUS) to predict neurodevelopmental outcomes, including motor and cognitive deficits. We also reviewed the additional benefit offered by including MRI scans in scanning protocols to enhance the reliability in predicting the neurodevelopmental sequelae of prematurity. RESULTS: CUS is valuable as a screening tool to determine significant brain injury when conducted regularly over the first weeks of life in preterm infants. Subtle changes on CUS are difficult to interpret and more precise information is offered by performing MRI scans. These are most often carried out at term equivalent age but earlier scans may be just as useful in predicting neurocognitive outcomes. When MRI scans are either normal or seriously abnormal, there is a very clear correlation with outcome to 2 years of age. Mild and moderate degrees of injury defined on MRI need more sophisticated scanning sequences to determine the likelihood of associated sequelae. Follow-up to school age is essential to diagnose more subtle cognitive delays. CONCLUSION: CUS provides a good screening tool to detect serious brain injury resulting in motor handicaps but MRI scans are complementary and necessary to accurately predict the outcomes of preterm infants, especially cognitive delays.
Authors: Emily W Y Tam; Glenn Rosenbluth; Elizabeth E Rogers; Donna M Ferriero; David Glidden; Ruth B Goldstein; Hannah C Glass; Robert E Piecuch; A James Barkovich Journal: J Pediatr Date: 2010-09-15 Impact factor: 4.406
Authors: Lianne J Woodward; Caron A C Clark; Verena E Pritchard; Peter J Anderson; Terrie E Inder Journal: Dev Neuropsychol Date: 2011 Impact factor: 2.253
Authors: L T L Sie; A A M Hart; J van Hof; L de Groot; W Lems; H N Lafeber; J Valk; M S van der Knaap Journal: Neuropediatrics Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 1.947
Authors: Catherine Limperopoulos; Haim Bassan; Kimberlee Gauvreau; Richard L Robertson; Nancy R Sullivan; Carol B Benson; Lauren Avery; Jane Stewart; Janet S Soul; Steven A Ringer; Joseph J Volpe; Adré J duPlessis Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Karl C K Kuban; Elizabeth N Allred; T Michael O'Shea; Nigel Paneth; Marcello Pagano; Olaf Dammann; Alan Leviton; Adré Du Plessis; Sjirk J Westra; Cindy R Miller; Haim Bassan; Kalpathy Krishnamoorthy; Joseph Junewick; Nicholas Olomu; Elaine Romano; Joanna Seibert; Steve Engelke; Padmani Karna; Daniel Batton; Sunila E O'Connor; Cecelia E Keller Journal: J Child Neurol Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 1.987
Authors: Susan R Hintz; Betty R Vohr; Carla M Bann; H Gerry Taylor; Abhik Das; Kathryn E Gustafson; Kimberly Yolton; Victoria E Watson; Jean Lowe; Maria Elena DeAnda; M Bethany Ball; Neil N Finer; Krisa P Van Meurs; Seetha Shankaran; Athina Pappas; Patrick D Barnes; Dorothy Bulas; Jamie E Newman; Deanne E Wilson-Costello; Roy J Heyne; Heidi M Harmon; Myriam Peralta-Carcelen; Ira Adams-Chapman; Andrea Freeman Duncan; Janell Fuller; Yvonne E Vaucher; Tarah T Colaizy; Sarah Winter; Elisabeth C McGowan; Ricki F Goldstein; Rosemary D Higgins Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2018-07 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Katharina Goeral; Gregor Kasprian; Britta M Hüning; Thomas Waldhoer; Renate Fuiko; Victor Schmidbauer; Daniela Prayer; Ursula Felderhoff-Müser; Angelika Berger; Monika Olischar; Katrin Klebermass-Schrehof Journal: Dev Med Child Neurol Date: 2021-11-28 Impact factor: 4.864
Authors: Heather Campbell; Jennifer Check; Karl C K Kuban; Alan Leviton; Robert M Joseph; Jean A Frazier; Laurie M Douglass; Kyle Roell; Elizabeth N Allred; Lynn Ansley Fordham; Stephen R Hooper; Hernan Jara; Nigel Paneth; Irina Mokrova; Hongyu Ru; Hudson P Santos; Rebecca C Fry; T Michael O'Shea Journal: J Pediatr Date: 2021-06-04 Impact factor: 6.314