A Clinical Study For Early Intervention In High-risk Infants Of Perinatal Period

AIMSrThe 106 high-risk infants of perinatal period whose medical records were integrated underwent an intervention and follow-up, in order to evaluate the effect of early intervention in the prevention and treatment of abnormal development of nervous system in high-risk infants.METHODS: The 106 high-risk infants of perinatal period who had been treated in our hospital from June 2003 to January 2005 and whose medical records were integrated and 10 mature healthy infants made up objects of this study. Self-control method was used. The guardians all accepted the introduction about the significance of early intervention and the implementation of the concrete measure, and they all agreed to join in this study. 1 > The high-risk infants who received early intervention and follow-up in one year old made up early intervened group , which was divided into two groups: group intervened from birth (Neonate early intervened group/ group A, n=58) and group who accepted intervention for the first time when they were anywhere from 1-12 months' old (Baby early intervened group/group B, n=41). 2,7 high-risk infants who begun seeking medical advice after one year old made up Non-early intervened group(group C, n=7), and 10 mature healthy babies made up Normal baby group(group D, n=10). Deferent treatment and intervention were carried out in these high-risk infants in their neonatal period and babyhood. The normal babies just accepted general training and guiding. Neonates were checked at the first week and the fourthweek, babies were checked monthly. Neonates were evaluated by NBNA. Babies who were not less than one month were evaluated by 52-neuro-motorial examination. In addition, physique development was checked.RESULTS: For group A, the NBNA score of the fourth week increased significantly[t=6.16, 5.41. 12.73, 3.32, 7.32, P<0.01]over that of the first week. And at the fourth week, the score of group A except the high-risk infants with more than one high-risk factors [t=6.94, P<0.01]were similar to that of group D[t=l. 65, 1.80. 2.00, 0.46, P>0.05]. In motor development, the deference between group A and group D became more and more small with intervention carried out[t=6.16, 6.99. 4.70, 2.21, 0.97, 0.21, P<0.01~P>0.05] ,and the progress of group A was more significant than that of group B or C. Group B accepted intervention from more than one month old, the motor development of it also improved, but the effect of intervention of it was worse than that of group A. Group C who begun accepting intervention after one year old didn't achieve satisfactory result (Three high-risk infants of it were diagnosed CP, and other four high-risk infants of it all had significant backwardness in motor development). For group D, though the NBNA score of it were also increased after three weeks, but there was no significant deference between the score of the fourth week and that of the first week[t=1.44, P>0.05]. In addition, there was significant deference in physique development between the early intervened groups(group A+ group...