medigraphic.com
Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán

2010, Number 2

<< Back Next >>

Rev Invest Clin 2010; 62 (2)

Comparison between five growth curves used in a public Hospital

Monroy-Torres R, Ramírez-Hernández SF, Guzmán-Barcenas J, Naves-Sánchez J

Language: Spanish
References: 17
Page: 121-127
PDF size: 64.87 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Objective. To compare five curves routinely used for growth evaluation in preterm newborns in a public hospital in Leon, Guanajuato, and to identify those with similar diagnosis according to the reference curve (Williams) in order to determine their usefulness in the clinical practice. Methods. Analytical, prospective, comparative and cross sectional study in 100 preterm infants, of both sexes, 30 to 36 weeks of gestation without congenital malformations. We obtained the weight and length for their interpretation and to compare the nutritional diagnosis, between five curves routinely used for growth evaluation in preterm newborns: Babson-Benda, Fenton, Jurado- García, Battaglia-Lubchenco and Williams, subsequently, four of the curves were compared against the reference curve (Williams). To analyse the proportions, the χ2 statistic was used. Results. The average age of the preterm infants was 34 ± 2 gestation weeks, with birth weight 1932 ± 699 g. When the combination between them were, it was noted that Babson and Benda-Fenton showed similar distribution for the diagnosis of small for gestional age by 50%. Small for gestational age was diagnosed with the Jurado-García, Williams, Battaglia-Lubchenco curves in 43, 38 y 29% respectively. The comparison showed that the curves of Jurado-García and Battaglia-Lubchenco rendered a similar diagnosis, respect to the curve of Williams. Conclusions. According to this study, the curves of Jurado-García and Battaglia- Lubchenco are recommended for evaluating the extra uterine and intrauterine growth of preterm infants.


REFERENCES

  1. Sauve R, Carver J. Feeding after discharge: growth, development and long-term effects. In: Nutrition of the preterm infant. Scientific basis and practical guidelines. Tsang R, Uauy R, Koletzco B, Zlotkin S (eds.). 2nd Ed. Cincinnati, Ohio: Digital. Educational Publishing; 2005, p. 357-81.

  2. Herrera R, Mayor J, Vázquez L. El catéter venoso percutáneo: una opción económica y segura para niños pretérmino de muy bajo peso. Colombia Médica 1996; 27(1): 11-15. Disponible en: http://colombiamedica.univalle.edu.co/VOL27NO1/ cateter.pdf Fecha de acceso: Junio de 2009

  3. Vargas GA, Cabañas MJ, Torres GL, Barra BA. Nacimiento pretérmino por indicación médica. Consecuencias maternas y fetales. Ginecol Obstet Méx 2002; 70(3): 153-60.

  4. Anderson M, Hay W. Retardo del crecimiento intrauterino y el neonato pequeño para la edad gestacional, neonatología fisiopatología y manejo del recién nacido. 5a. Ed. EUA: Panamericana; 2001, p. 411-13.

  5. Cuevas A. Gaceta de comunicación interna publicada por la Dirección General de Comunicación Social de la Secretaría de Salud; 2004, 20: 18. Disponible en: http://portal.salud.gob.mx/ sites/salud/descargas/pdf/gaceta_marzo.pdf Fecha de acceso: 17 de septiembre de 2008.

  6. Villanueva-Egan LA. Epidemiología y costos del parto pretérmino. Ginecol Obstet Mex 2007; 75: S4-S9.

  7. Perreira G, Georgieff K. Nutritional assessment. In: Fetal and neonatal physiology. Polin R, William F (eds.). Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Saunders Company; 1992, p. 277-90.

  8. Nevin-Folino N. Nutrition assessment of premature infants. In: Pediatric Manual of Clinical Dietetics. 2nd Ed. U.S.A.: American Diet Association; 2003, p. 127-43.

  9. Villalobos G, Guzmán J, Vega P, Ortiz V, Casanueva E. Antropométrica del recién nacido. Perinatol Reprod Hum 2002; 16(2): 74-9.

  10. González P, Gómez RM, Castro R, Nien JK, Merino P, Etchegaray BA, et al. Curva nacional de distribución de peso al nacer según edad gestacional. Chile, 1993 a 2000. Rev Med Chile 2004; 132: 1155-65.

  11. Grandi C, Luchtenberg G, Rojas E. ¿Es adecuado el uso de curvas de peso neonatales para el diagnóstico de retardo del crecimiento en recién nacidos prematuros? Rev Chil Pediatr 2005; 76(3); 322-3. Disponible en: http://www.scielo.cl/ scielo.php?pid=S0370-41062005000300015&script=sci_arttext Fecha de acceso: 20 abril 2008.

  12. Physical status: the use and interpretation of anthropometry. Report of a WHO Expert Committee. Technical Report Series No. 854. Disponible en: http://www.who.int/childgrowth/publications/ physical_status/en/index.html Fecha de acceso: Abril de 2009.

  13. Williams RL, Creasy RK, Cunningham GC, Hawes E, Norris FD, Tashiro M. Fetal growth and Perinatal Viability in California. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists 1982; 5(59): 624-30.

  14. Babson SG, Benda GI. Growth graphs for the clinical assessment of infants of varying gestational age. J Pediatr 1976; 89; 814-20 Disponible en: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471- 2431/3/13 Fecha de acceso: Mayo de 2009.

  15. Fenton TR. A new growth chart preterm babies: Babson and Benda’s chart update with recent data and a new format. BMC Pediatrics 2003; 3: 13. Intrauterine weight-Kramer MS, et al (e Padiatr 2001); Length and Head Circunference- Niktasson (Acta Pediatr Scand 1991) and B P J et al (J Pediatr Child Health 1996); Post term sections – the CDC Growth Charts 2000. - Disponible en: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2431/3/ 13-Fecha de acceso: Junio 2009.

  16. Jurado GE. El crecimiento intrauterino. Gac Med Mex 1971; 102(2): 227-55. Disponible en: http://respyn.uanl.mx/ii/4/contexto/ nom007.html. Fecha de acceso: Junio de 2009.

  17. Battaglia FC, Lubchenco LO. A practical classification of newborn infants by weight and gestational age. J Pediatr 1967; 71(2): 159-3. Disponible en: http://respyn.uanl.mx/ii/4/contexto/ nom007.html. Fecha de acceso: Junio de 2009.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com