PDF(1174 KB)
642例矫正胎龄38~58周婴儿运动表现测试结果的分析
王成举, 赵树琳, 申量, 胡斌, 卜晓琴, 蔡益, 肖璨, 张雨平
中国当代儿科杂志 ›› 2017, Vol. 19 ›› Issue (12) : 1252-1256.
PDF(1174 KB)
PDF(1174 KB)
642例矫正胎龄38~58周婴儿运动表现测试结果的分析
Analysis of the Test of Infant Motor Performance data from 642 infants with a postconceptual age of 38-58 weeks
目的 探讨基于重庆3所医院矫正胎龄38~58周婴儿的运动表现测试（TIMP）数据与美国常模数据的差异，为TIMP在国内的引进及应用提供参考。方法 使用TIMP对2016年1~12月在陆军军医大学第二附属医院、重庆市沙坪坝区妇幼保健院、重庆市妇幼保健院早产儿随访门诊或儿保门诊就诊的642例矫正胎龄38~58周婴儿进行评估测试，统计评估得分并与美国常模数据进行比较。结果 该组婴儿TIMP得分随婴儿矫正胎龄的增加而升高，从38~39+6周龄组的37±5分，增加至56~57+6周龄组的83±12分。但各周龄组平均得分均低于美国常模，差异有统计学意义（P < 0.001）。结论 TIMP评估得分可反映不同矫正胎龄婴儿的运动能力。基于重庆3所医院门诊矫正胎龄38~58周婴儿的TIMP数据与美国常模相比差异较大，提示在国内使用TIMP评估小婴儿运动能力前建立中国TIMP常模非常必要。
Objective To investigate the differences between the Test of Infant Motor Performance (TIMP) data from the infants at 38-58 weeks of postconceptual age in three hospitals in Chongqing, China and the America norms, and to provide a reference for the introduction and application of TIMP in China. Methods TIMP was used to assess 642 infants with 38-58 weeks of postconceptual age who visited the departments of preterm infants or child healthcare in the Second Affiliated Hospital of Army Medical University, Shapingba Maternal and Child Health Hospital in Chongqing, and Chongqing Maternal and Child Health Hospital between January and December, 2016. The assessment scores were analyzed and compared with the America norms. Results The TIMP scores increased with the increasing postconceptual age, with 37±5 points in the 38-39+6 week group and 83±12 points in the 56-57+6 week group. All age groups had a significantly lower mean score than the America norms (P < 0.001). Conclusions TIMP scores can reflect the motor performance in infants with various postconceptual ages. The TIMP scores from the infants with a postconceptual age of 38-58 weeks in three hospitals in Chongqing are significantly different from the America norms, suggesting that it is very necessary in China to establish the Chinese norms for assessing motor performance in infants using TIMP.
[1] Moster D, Lie RT, Markestad T. Long-term medical and social consequences of preterm birth[J]. N Engl J Med, 2008, 359(3):262-273.
[2] Himmelmann K, Uvebrant P. The panorama of cerebral palsy in Sweden. XI. Changing patterns in the birth-year period 2003-2006[J]. Acta Paediatr, 2014, 103(6):618-624.
[3] Donald KA, Samia P, Kakooza-Mwesige A, et al. Pediatric cerebral palsy in Africa:a systematic review[J]. Semin Pediatr Neurol, 2014, 21(1):30-35.
[4] Hadders-Algra M. Early diagnosis and early intervention in cerebral palsy[J]. Front Neurol, 2014, 5:185.
[5] Spittle AJ, Doyle LW, Boyd RN. A systematic review of the clinimetric properties of neuromotor assessments for preterm infants during the first year of life[J]. Dev Med Child Neurol, 2008, 50(4):254-266.
[6] Campbell SK. The Test of Infant Motor Performance[M]. Test User's Manual Version 3.0. Chicago:Infant Motor Performance Scales, LLC, 2012.
[7] Campbell SK, Levy P, Zawacki L, et al. Population-based age standards for interpreting results on the test of motor infant performance[J]. Pediatr Phys Ther, 2006, 18(2):119-125.
[8] Bracewell M, Marlow N. Patterns of motor disability in very preterm children[J]. Ment Retard Dev Disabil Res Rev, 2002, 8(4):241-248.
[9] Panteliadis CP, Hagel C, Karch D, et al. Cerebral palsy:a lifelong challenge asks for early intervention[J]. Open Neurol J, 2015, 9:45-52.
[10] Hadders-Algra M, Boxum AG, Hielkema T, et al. Effect of early intervention in infants at very high risk of cerebral palsy:a systematic review[J]. Dev Med Child Neurol, 2017, 59(3):246-258.
[11] Wang CJ, McGlynn EA, Brook RH, et al. Quality-of-care indicators for the neurodevelopmental follow-up for very low birth weight children:results of an expert panel process[J]. Pediatrics, 2006, 117(6):2080-2092.
[12] van Haastert IC, de Vries LS, Helders PJ, et al. Early gross motor development of preterm infants according to the Alberta Infant Motor Scale[J]. J Pediatr, 2006, 149(5):617-622.
[13] Campbell SK, Zawacki L, Rankin KM, et al. Concurrent validity of the TIMP and the Bayley Ⅲ scales at 6 weeks corrected age[J]. Pediatr Phys Ther, 2013, 25(4):395-401.
[14] Campbell SK, Kolobe TH, Wright BD, et al. Validity of the Test of Infant Motor Performance for prediction of 6-, 9-, and 12-month scores on the Alberta Infant Motor Scale[J]. Dev Med Child Neurol, 2002, 44(4):263-272.
[15] Barbosa VM, Campbell SK, Sheftel D, et al. Longitudinal performance of infants with cerebral palsy on the Test of Infant Motor Performance and on the Alberta Infant Motor Scale[J]. Phys Occup Ther Pediatr, 2003, 23(3):7-29.
[16] Craciunoiu O, Holsti L. A systematic review of the predictive validity of neurobehavioral assessments during the preterm period[J]. Phys Occup Ther Pediatr, 2017, 37(3):292-307.
[17] Guimarães CL, Reinaux CM, Botelho AC, et al. Motor development evaluated by Test of Infant Motor Performance:comparison between preterm and full-term infants[J]. Rev Bras Fisioter, 2011, 15(5):357-362.
[18] Nuysink J, van Haastert IC, Eijsermans MJ, et al. Prediction of gross motor development and independent walking in infants born very preterm using the Test of Infant Motor Performance and the Alberta Infant Motor Scale[J]. Early Hum Dev, 2013, 89(9):693-697.
[19] Mendonça B, Sargent B, Fetters L. Cross-cultural validity of standardized motor development screening and assessment tools:a systematic review[J]. Dev Med Child Neurol, 2016, 58(12):1213-1222.
[20] 贺莉, 邵冬冬, 杜慧莹, 等. 婴儿运动能力测试对早产儿纠正胎龄8~9周及12~13周运动能力的评估作用[J]. 中国儿童保健杂志, 2014, 22(3):252-254.
重庆市社会事业与民生保障科技创新专项（cstc2017shmsA130013）。
