Original articleNeuropsychologic and motor function in small-for-gestation preschoolers
Introduction
Both preterm low-birth-weight and term small-for-gestation children have been reported to have a lower mean intelligence quotient than normal birth weight control subjects, the size of the difference being approximately five points [1], [2]. For preterm low-birth-weight children, visuospatial and visuomotor performance have typically been more affected than verbal proficiency [2]. Such possible differences have rarely been studied in term small-for-gestation children.
Impaired motor performance and increased frequency of minor neurologic dysfunction have been described in nonhandicapped preterm low-birth-weight children [3]. Among term small-for-gestation children, however, previous findings have been inconsistent [4], [5].
The aims of the present study were as follows: (1) to describe the typical pattern of neuropsychologic impairment in preschool small-for-gestation children in a large population-based sample; (2) to investigate whether decreased gross motor and fine motor performance and an increased frequency of minor neurologic dysfunction are observed in small-for-gestation compared with appropriate-for-gestation preschoolers; and (3) to investigate, in explorative analyses, whether identifiable maternal risk factors for giving birth to a small-for-gestation infant are predictive of performance on neuropsychologic and motor measures among small-for-gestation children.
Section snippets
Materials and methods
Follow-up study of infants until 13 months of age and intelligence quotients of children at 5 years of age, including family demographics and socioeconomic and parental factors, have been described in previous studies [2], [6], [7], [8].
This study was part of a large prospective, multicenter study on causes and consequences of in utero growth retardation, the NICHD Study of Successive Small-for-Gestational Age Births (NSSSAB). The basic study design has been described previously [9]. Between
Results
A total of 677 eligible small-for-gestation and appropriate-for-gestation children were examined at 5 years of age. This constituted 68% of the 997 eligible children (Table 1). Parents declining participation was the most common cause of loss to follow-up (Table 1). There were no statistically significant differences within either the small-for-gestation or the appropriate-for-gestation groups between children who were lost to follow-up after birth and those who were assessed regarding
Discussion
The major finding of the present study was that term small-for-gestation preschoolers as a group differed little from their appropriate-for-gestation peers regarding neuropsychologic profile and neuromotor outcome. However, the small-for-gestation children had 0.25 S.D. lower mean scores on items involving visuospatial performance. Among the small-for-gestation children, identifiable maternal risk factors for giving birth to a small-for-gestation infant were not predictive of child outcome at
Acknowledgments
We thank Mrs. Francoise Alsaker for valuable help with selection of appropriate methods for parental evaluation and Mrs. Tone Flornes for valuable help in collecting the data for this project and the rest of the staff at the Department of Biologic and Medical Psychology, University of Bergen. The study has been financed by the Norwegian Research Council (NFR) Grant No: 102697/320, and partly by the Norwegian Red Cross Research Fund and NICHD, NIH project number RFP-NICHD-PRP-90-11. Karin
References (30)
- et al.
Intrauterine growth retardation and mental handicapepidemiological evidence
Baillieres Clin Obstet Gynaecol
(1988) - et al.
Intrauterine growth retardationA study of long term morbidity
Am J Obstet Gynecol
(1982) - et al.
Cognitive development of term small for gestational age children at five years of age
Arch Dis Child
(2000) - et al.
Low birthweight and neuromotor developmentA population based, controlled study
Acta Paediatrica
(1996) - et al.
Born too soon or born too smallA followup study to seven years of age
Clinics in developmental medicine, No 61. LondonWilliam Heinemann Medical Books
(1976) - et al.
Small-for-gestational-age (SGA) infants born at termgrowth and development during the first year of life
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand Suppl
(1997) - et al.
Morbidity during the first year of life in small for gestational age infants
Arch Dis Child Fetal-Neonatal Ed
(1996) - et al.
Body proportions and early neonatal morbidity in small-for-gestational-age infants of successive births
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand Suppl
(1997) - et al.
Pre-pregnancy risk factors of small-for-gestational age births among parous women in Scandinavia
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand
(1993) - et al.
Children of deviant birthweightthe influence of genetic and other factors on size at seven years
Acta Paediatr Scand
(1985)
Percentiles of birth weight and crown-heel length in relation to gestation period for single live births
Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen
Small for gestational age (SGA) definitions and associated risks
Int J Technol Assess Health Care
WPPSI-R, Manual
Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities. Norwegian Edition
Miller Assessment for Preschoolers
Cited by (34)
Impact of the healthcare pathway on the rate of obstetrical interventions in small for gestational age fetuses (IATROPAG Study)
2021, Gynecologie Obstetrique Fertilite et SenologiePain Sensitivity and Thermal Detection Thresholds in Young Adults Born Preterm With Very Low Birth Weight or Small for Gestational Age at Term Compared With Controls
2018, Journal of PainCitation Excerpt :The term SGA and control groups were recruited randomly from para 1 and 2 pregnant women in the general population during the same time period as part of a multicenter study investigating the risk factors for SGA birth.2 The study groups have previously participated in several multidisciplinary follow-up studies,8,15,17,22,27,28 including an assessment of self-reported pain at a mean age of 26 years.16 The enrollment and exclusion of participants from baseline and up to 26 years have previously been described in detail.16
Functional outcomes at age 7 years of moderate preterm and full term children born small for gestational age
2015, Journal of PediatricsCitation Excerpt :Other long-term follow-up studies conflict with our results: Emond et al20 found no differences in manual dexterity, whereas they did in ball skills and balance (Movement ABC). Conversely, Sommerfelt et al38 found poorer manual dexterity in their study group and no differences in ball skills and balance (Peabody Developmental Motor Scales). Differences in motor outcomes between these studies and ours may be explained by the age difference of the groups (14 vs 7 years) and by the type of tests used.
Induction of labor for term small-for-gestational-age fetuses: What are the consequences?
2013, European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive BiologyCitation Excerpt :Most of the data suggest an increased rate of immediate complications, short-term morbidity and mortality [1–3], as well as long-term neurological and cognitive developmental delays in childhood [4,5]. Not all studies, however, confirm these findings [6–10]. The majority (approximately 80%) of all SGA neonates are born at term [11].
Do visual impairments affect risk of motor problems in preterm and term low birth weight adolescents?
2009, European Journal of Paediatric NeurologyCitation Excerpt :Children who have been growth retarded in utero are usually diagnosed by having a low birth weight for their gestational age (small for gestational age: SGA). Studies on motor skills in term SGA children are few and have shown inconsistent results.19–23 We have previously reported that term SGA adolescents, in particular boys, more often had motor problems, especially poor manual dexterity, compared with non-SGA adolescents.9