| Literature DB >> 33263617 |
Janaina de Lima Menger1, Letícia Reck Mafaldo2, Daniele Schiwe3, Camila Wohlgemuth Schaan4, João Paulo Heinzmann-Filho5.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review the effects of the hammock positioning on clinical parameters of preterm newborn infants (PTNB) admitted to the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU). DATA SOURCES: This was a systematic review performed by searching the Pubmed, Lilacs, SciELO and PEDro databases. Intervention studies in English, Portuguese and Spanish that evaluated the effects of hammock positioning on clinical parameters of PTNB admitted to the NICU were selected. Three search strategies were used: 1) hammock positioning OR patient positioning AND intensive care units AND infant, newborn; 2) hammock positioning OR patient positioning AND intensive care units; 3) hammock positioning OR patient positioning AND intensive care units, neonatal. There was no restriction on the year of publication of the articles. Methodological quality was assessed by the PEDro scale. DATA SYNTHESIS: Among 597 articles, only six were included and 139 neonates with gestational ages between 26 and 37 weeks and an average gestational weight <2240g were analyzed. Four studies included patients without any associated pathology and most of them placed the PTNB supine in hammock positioning. The duration of the intervention ranged from 15 to 180 minutes and most applied it at just one moment. There was an improvement in heart rate (HR), respiratory rate (RR) and pain (3/4 studies), as well as gains in peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) (2/4 studies). Only one study reported worsening of SpO2 with the intervention. The methodological quality of the studies was classified as low.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33263617 PMCID: PMC7703730 DOI: 10.1590/1984-0462/2021/39/2019399
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Rev Paul Pediatr ISSN: 0103-0582
Figure 1.Systematization of the selection of studies in this review.
Identification of the studies included in this review.
| Authors | Country | Sample Size | Outline | Purpose of the study |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ribas et al. | Brazil | 26 | RCT | Evaluate the effects of hammock positioning on reducing pain and improving sleep/wakefulness and vital signs |
| Jesus et al. | Brazil | 28 | Quasi-experimental | Evaluate the effects of hammock positioning on behavioral status, pain and vital signs |
| Queiroz et al. | Brazil | 20 | Quasi-experimental with cross-over | Verify the use of hammocks and prone positioning for pain relief and vital sign behavior |
| Costa et al. | Brazil | 30 | Quasi-experimental with cross-over | Compare the effects of hammock positioning and the nest on the level of pain, posture and organizational status |
| Keller et al. | Israel | 20 | RCT | Examine the effects of hammock positioning on growth, autonomic stability and neuromuscular maturity |
| Zanardo et al. | Italy | 15 | Quasi-experimental | Evaluate the effects of hammock positioning on peripheral oxygen saturation |
RCT: Randomized Controlled Trial
Characteristics of the evaluated samples.
| Authors | Age (weeks) | Birth weight (g) | Associated pathologies | Variables evaluated | Moment of evaluation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ribas et al. | 30 to 37 | 1620±0.51* | None | Pain, HR, RR, SpO2 and sleep/wake | 10 minutes before and after the intervention |
| Jesus et al. | 28 to 36 | <1500 | None | Pain, HR, RR, SpO2 and behavioral status | 10 minutes before and throughout the intervention (2, 20, 40, 60 minutes) and after 10 minutes |
| Queiroz et al. | 32+ | 1932$ | RDS and BPD | Pain, HR, RR, SpO2, SBP, DBP, MAP and body temperature | Before and after the intervention# |
| Costa et al. | 32 to 35 | 1400-1800 | None | Pain, flexing posture and organizational status | After changing diapers# |
| Keller et al. | 26 to 30 | <1500 | None | HR, RR, weight gain and neuromuscular maturation | Before, during, and after the intervention# |
| Zanardo et al. | 27 to 30 | 970-2240 | BPD | SpO2 | 15 minutes before, during, and after the intervention |
+Average gestational age of the evaluated group; *average weight of hammock positioning group; $average gestational weight of the evaluated group; RDS: respiratory distress syndrome; BPD: bronchopulmonary dysplasia; HR: heart rate; RR: respiratory rate; SpO2: peripheral oxygen saturation; SBP: systolic blood pressure; DBP: diastolic blood pressure; MAP: mean arterial pressure; #study did not specify the exact measurement time.
Main results of studies included in this review.
| Authors | Type of intervention | Frequency | Duration | Statistical analysis | Pain | HR | RR | SpO2 | Other outcomes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ribas CG et al. |
Hammock positioning in LD Nesting position in LD | 5 days | 120 minutes | Intergroups | ↓ | ↓ | ↓ | ↑ | ↑ Sleep and wake |
| Jesus VR et al. | Hammock positioning in supine | 1 moment | 60 minutes | Intra-groups | ↔ | ↓ | ↓ | ↔ | ↑Behavioral status |
| Queiroz CMB et al. |
Hammock positioning in RLD Nesting position in RLD | 1 moment | 40 minutes | Intra-groups | ↓ ↓ | ↔ ↔ | ↔ ↔ | ↑ ↑ |
↔ SPB, DBP, MAP ↔ Body temperature ↔ SPB, DBP, MAP ↔ Body temperature |
| Costa KSF et al. |
Hammock positioning in supine Nest positioning in prone | 1 moment | 40 minutes | Intergroups | ↓ | - | - | - |
↑ Flexor posture ↑ Organizational status |
| Keller et al. |
Hammock positioning in supine Nest positioning in prone | 10 days | 180 minutes | Intergroups | - | ↓ | ↓ | - |
↑ Neuromuscular maturation ↔ Body weight |
| Zanardo V et al. | Hammock positioning in supine | 1 moment | 15 minutes | Intra-groups | - | - | - | ↓ | - |
LD: lateral decubitus; RLD: right lateral decubitus; intragroups: comparison of results before and after the intervention within the group; intergroups: comparison of intervention results between different groups; HR: heart rate (beats per minute); RR: respiratory rate (breath per minute); SpO2: peripheral oxygen saturation; ↑: increase; ↓: reduction; ↔: no change; -: not evaluated; SBP: systolic blood pressure; DBP: diastolic blood pressure; MAP: mean arterial pressure;
Evaluation of the methodological quality of the studies included in this review.
| Evaluated criteria | Ribas CG et al. | Jesus VR et al. | Queiroz CMB et al. | Costa KSF et al. | Keller et al. | Zanardo V et al. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eligibility criteria* | + | + | + | + | + | + |
| Random allocation | + | - | - | - | + | - |
| Hidden allocation | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Similar groups | + | - | - | - | + | - |
| Blind participants | + | + | + | + | + | + |
| Blind therapists | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Blind evaluators | + | - | - | - | - | - |
| Adequate follow-up | + | + | + | + | + | + |
| Intention to treat analysis | + | + | + | + | + | - |
| Between group comparisons | + | - | + | + | + | - |
| Point estimates and variability | + | + | + | + | + | + |
| Total score | 8/10 | 4/10 | 5/10 | 5/10 | 7/10 | 3/10 |
*The item of the eligibility criteria does not contribute to the total score; + yes; - no.