Clinical significance of oral motor intervention on the prognosis of early premature infant
10.3760/cma.j.issn.2095-4352.2019.02.006
- VernacularTitle:早期口腔运动干预对早产儿预后的影响
- Author:
Chunyan YANG
1
;
Fengmin LIU
;
Liying ZHOU
;
Qinghua SHEN
;
Huanrong JIA
;
Ping XU
;
Yanhui LI
;
Stephanie LEE
Author Information
1. 聊城市人民医院儿科
- Keywords:
Oral motor intervention;
Premature infant;
Prognosis
- From:
Chinese Critical Care Medicine
2019;31(2):150-154
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective? To? explore? the? clinical? significance? of? early? oral? intervention? measures? in? the?prognosis?of?premature?infants.? Methods? 151?preterm?infants?admitted?to?neonatal?intensive?care?unit?(NICU)?of?Liaocheng?People's?Hospital?from?January?2015?to?January?2017?were?enrolled.?Premature?infants?were?divided?into?intervention?group?and?control?group?according?to?random?number?table?method?and?with?the?consent?of?legal?guardian.?Both?groups?received?routine?treatment?of?preterm?infants?after?stable?vital?signs.?The?intervention?group?received?the?oral?massage?method?adopted?by?none-nutritive?sucking,?stimulating?swallowing?function?and?SandraFucile?on?the?basis?of?routine?treatment,?once?a?day?for?14?consecutive?days.?Both?groups?were?followed?up?for?6?months.?The?oral?feeding?ability?of?premature?infants?was?evaluated?by?the?proficiency?(PRO),?rate?of?transfer?(RT),?feeding?process?and??non-nutritive?suction?(NNS).?At?40?weeks?of?postmenstrual?age?(PMA),?neonatal?behavioral?neurological?(NBNA)?was?used?to?assess?neonatal?brain?development;?Infanib?was?used?for?early?motor?development?evaluation?at?3?months?and??6?months?after?birth.? Results? Finally,?151?premature?infants?were?enrolled,?including?78?in?the?intervention?group?and?73?in?the?control?group.?The?time?to?complete?oral?feeding?of?the?intervention?group?was?significantly?shorter?than?that?of?the?control?group?(days:?18.1±3.7?vs.?23.4±5.8,?P??0.05).?Infanib?evaluation?at?3?months?of?age?showed?that?the?proportion?of?normal?children?in?the?intervention?group?was?significantly?higher?than?that?in?the?control?group?[67.95%?(53/78)?vs.?49.31%?(36/73),?P?
