Ann Rehabil Med.  2023 Jun;47(3):147-161. 10.5535/arm.23038.

Early Neurodevelopmental Assessments of Neonates Discharged From the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit: A Physiatrist’s Perspective

• Hyun SE
• Kwon JY
• Hong BY
• Yoon JA
• Choi JY
• Hong J
• Koh SE
• Ko EJ
• Kim SK
• Song MK
• Yi SH
• Cho A
• Kwon BS

• KMID: 2543412
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.5535/arm.23038

Abstract

The survival rate of children admitted in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) after birth is on the increase; hence, proper evaluation and care of their neurodevelopment has become an important issue. Neurodevelopmental assessments of individual domains regarding motor, language, cognition, and sensory perception are crucial in planning prompt interventions for neonates requiring immediate support and rehabilitation treatment. These assessments are essential for identifying areas of weakness and designing targeted interventions to improve future functional outcomes and the quality of lives for both the infants and their families. However, initial stratification of risk to select those who are in danger of neurodevelopmental disorders is also important in terms of cost-effectiveness. Efficient and robust functional evaluations to recognize early signs of developmental disorders will help NICU graduates receive interventions and enhance functional capabilities if needed. Several age-dependent, domain-specific neurodevelopmental assessment tools are available; therefore, this review summarizes the characteristics of these tools and aims to develop multidimensional, standardized, and regular follow-up plans for NICU graduates in Korea.

Keyword

Low birth weight infant; Neonatal intensive care unit; Neurodevelopmental disorder; Premature birth; Rehabilitation

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1. Neurodevelopmental surveillance and follow-up periods according to risk factors after discharge from neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). CA, corrected age; BSID. Bayley Scales of Infant Development.

Reference

1. Kim SW, Jeon HR, Shin JC, Youk T, Kim J. Incidence of cerebral palsy in Korea and the effect of socioeconomic status: a population-based nationwide study. Yonsei Med J. 2018; 59:781–6.

2. Kim HE, Song IG, Chung SH, Choi YS, Bae CW. Trends in birth weight and the incidence of low birth weight and advanced maternal age in Korea between 1993 and 2016. J Korean Med Sci. 2019; 34:e34.

3. Spittle AJ, Anderson PJ, Tapawan SJ, Doyle LW, Cheong JLY. Early developmental screening and intervention for high-risk neonates- from research to clinical benefits. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2021; 26:101203.

4. Seppänen AV, Draper ES, Petrou S, Barros H, Andronis L, Kim SW, et al. Follow-up after very preterm birth in Europe. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2022; 107:113–4.

5. National Guideline Alliance (UK). Developmental follow-up of children and young people born preterm. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE);2017.

6. Doyle LW, Anderson PJ, Battin M, Bowen JR, Brown N, Callanan C, et al. Long term follow up of high risk children: who, why and how? BMC Pediatr. 2014; 14:279.

7. Anderson PJ, Treyvaud K, Spittle AJ. Early developmental interventions for infants born very preterm- what works? Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2020; 25:101119.

8. Bhutani VK. Multidisciplinary guidelines for the care of late preterm infants. J Perinatol. 2014; 34:81.

9. Phillips RM, Goldstein M, Hougland K, Nandyal R, Pizzica A, Santa-Donato A, et al. Multidisciplinary guidelines for the care of late preterm infants. J Perinatol. 2013; 33(Suppl 2):S5–22.

10. Kenyhercz F, Kósa K, Nagy BE. Perinatal, neonatal, developmental and demographic predictors of intelligence at 4 years of age among low birth weight children: a panel study with a 2-year follow-up. BMC Pediatr. 2022; 22:88.

11. Marlow N, Wolke D, Bracewell MA, Samara M. Neurologic and developmental disability at six years of age after extremely preterm birth. N Engl J Med. 2005; 352:9–19.

12. Trønnes H, Wilcox AJ, Lie RT, Markestad T, Moster D. Risk of cerebral palsy in relation to pregnancy disorders and preterm birth: a national cohort study. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2014; 56:779–85.

13. Liu TY, Chang JH, Peng CC, Hsu CH, Jim WT, Lin JY, et al. Predictive validity of the Bayley-III cognitive scores at 6 months for cognitive outcomes at 24 months in very-low-birth-weight infants. Front Pediatr. 2021; 9:638449.

14. Novak I, Morgan C, Adde L, Blackman J, Boyd RN, Brunstrom-Hernandez J, et al. Early, accurate diagnosis and early intervention in cerebral palsy: advances in diagnosis and treatment. JAMA Pediatr 2017;171:897-907. Erratum in: JAMA Pediatr. 2017; 171:919.

15. Anderson PJ, Burnett A. Assessing developmental delay in early childhood- concerns with the Bayley-III scales. Clin Neuropsychol. 2017; 31:371–81.

16. Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007; 60:34–42.

17. Chung HJ, Yang D, Kim GH, Kim SK, Kim SW, Kim YK, et al. Development of the Korean developmental screening test for infants and children (K-DST). Clin Exp Pediatr. 2020; 63:438–46.

18. Kwun Y, Park HW, Kim MJ, Lee BS, Kim EA. Validity of the ages and stages questionnaires in Korean compared to Bayley Scales of infant development-II for screening preterm infants at corrected age of 18-24 months for neurodevelopmental delay. J Korean Med Sci. 2015; 30:450–5.

19. Chung HJ, Eun BL, Kim HS, Kim JK, Shin SM, Lee JH, et al. The validity of Korean Ages and Stages Questionnaires (K-ASQ) in Korean infants and children. J Korean Child Neurol Soc. 2014; 22:1–11.

20. Santos RS, Araújo AP, Porto MA. Early diagnosis of abnormal development of preterm newborns: assessment instruments. J Pediatr (Rio J). 2008; 84:289–99.

21. Shin HS, Kwon BS, Lim SO. Validity of Korean version of Denver II in screening children with developmental risk. J Korean Acad Child Health Nurs. 2005; 11:316–21.

22. Frankenburg WK, Dodds J, Archer P, Shapiro H, Bresnick B. The Denver II: a major revision and restandardization of the Denver Developmental Screening Test. Pediatrics. 1992; 89:91–7.

23. Visser L, Ruiter SA, Van der Meulen BF, Ruijssenaars WA, Timmerman ME. Low verbal assessment with the Bayley-III. Res Dev Disabil. 2015; 36C:230–43.

24. Connolly BH, McClune NO, Gatlin R. Concurrent validity of the Bayley-III and the Peabody Developmental Motor Scale-2. Pediatr Phys Ther. 2012; 24:345–52.

25. Ahn SH, Yoo EY, Lee SH. A validation study of the gross motor scale of Korean version of Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development, Third Edition. J Korean Soc Occup Ther. 2018; 26:81–97.

26. Spittle AJ, Spencer-Smith MM, Eeles AL, Lee KJ, Lorefice LE, Anderson PJ, et al. Does the Bayley-III Motor Scale at 2 years predict motor outcome at 4 years in very preterm children? Dev Med Child Neurol. 2013; 55:448–52.

27. Noble Y, Boyd R. Neonatal assessments for the preterm infant up to 4 months corrected age: a systematic review. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2012; 54:129–39.

28. Griffiths A, Toovey R, Morgan PE, Spittle AJ. Psychometric properties of gross motor assessment tools for children: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2018; 8:e021734.

29. Prechtl HF, Einspieler C, Cioni G, Bos AF, Ferrari F, Sontheimer D. An early marker for neurological deficits after perinatal brain lesions. Lancet. 1997; 349:1361–3.

30. Einspieler C, Prechtl H, Bos A, Ferrari F, Cioni G. Prechtl’s method on the qualitative assessment of general movements in preterm, term and young infants. London: Mac Keith Press;2008.

31. Maitre NL, Chorna O, Romeo DM, Guzzetta A. Implementation of the Hammersmith Infant Neurological Examination in a high-risk infant follow-up program. Pediatr Neurol. 2016; 65:31–8.

32. Romeo DM, Ricci D, Brogna C, Mercuri E. Use of the Hammersmith Infant Neurological Examination in infants with cerebral palsy: a critical review of the literature. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2016; 58:240–5.

33. Folio MR. Peabody developmental motor scales. DLM Teaching Resources. Riverside: Itasca;1983.

34. Piper MC, Pinnell LE, Darrah J, Maguire T, Byrne PJ. Construction and validation of the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS). Can J Public Health. 1992; 83 Suppl 2:S46–50.

35. 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. Dev Med Child Neurol 2008;50:254-66. Erratum in: Dev Med Child Neurol. 2008; 50:800.

36. Mendonça B, Sargent B, Fetters L. Cross-cultural validity of standardized motor development screening and assessment tools: a systematic review. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2016; 58:1213–22.

37. Yoon JA, An SW, Choi YS, Seo JS, Yoon SJ, Kim SY, et al. Correlation of language assessment batteries of toddlers with developmental language delay. Ann Rehabil Med. 2022; 46:256–62.

38. Ha JW, Lee E. A qualitative inquiry on the Paradise-Fluency Assessment (P-FA). Commun Sci Disord. 2009; 14:363–79.

39. Rescorla L, Ratner NB, Jusczyk P, Jusczyk AM. Concurrent validity of the language development survey: associations with the MacArthur-Bates communicative development inventories: words and sentences. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2005; 14:156–63.

40. Ha S, Kim M, Pi M. Percentage of consonants correct and age of acquisition of consonants in Korean-speaking children in one-syllable word contexts. Commun Sci Disord. 2019; 24:460–8.

41. Salonen J, Slama S, Haavisto A, Rosenqvist J. Comparison of WPPSI-IV and WISC-V cognitive profiles in 6-7-year-old Finland-Swedish children- findings from the FinSwed study. Child Neuropsychol. 2023; 29:687–709.

42. Spittle A, Treyvaud K. The role of early developmental intervention to influence neurobehavioral outcomes of children born preterm. Semin Perinatol. 2016; 40:542–8.

43. Goyen TA, Lui K, Woods R. Visual-motor, visual-perceptual, and fine motor outcomes in very-low-birthweight children at 5 years. Dev Med Child Neurol. 1998; 40:76–81.

44. Ricci D, Romeo DM, Gallini F, Groppo M, Cesarini L, Pisoni S, et al. Early visual assessment in preterm infants with and without brain lesions: correlation with visual and neurodevelopmental outcome at 12 months. Early Hum Dev. 2011; 87:177–82.

45. Pueyo V, García-Ormaechea I, González I, Ferrer C, de la Mata G, Duplá M, et al. Development of the preverbal visual assessment (PreViAs) questionnaire. Early Hum Dev. 2014; 90:165–8.

46. Bahk D, Hwang ST, Kim JH, Hong SH. Standardization of the VMI-6: reliability and validity. Korean J Clin Psychol. 2016; 35:21–44.

47. Glennon TJ, Miller Kuhaneck H, Herzberg D. The Sensory Processing Measure–Preschool (SPM-P)—part one: description of the tool and its use in the preschool environment. J Occup Ther Sch Early Interv. 2011; 4:42–52.

48. Chojnicka I, Pisula E. Adaptation and psychometric properties of the Polish version of the Short Sensory Profile 2. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019; 98:e17689.

49. Bak AR, Kim H, Yoo DH, Cha TH. Study to reliability and validity of short sensory profile2. J Korean Soc Occup Ther. 2017; 25:131–9.

50. DeGangi GA, Greenspan SI. Test of sensory functions in infants (TSFI). Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services;1989.

51. Glennon TJ. Test of sensory functioning in infants. In : Volkmar FR, editor. Encyclopedia of autism spectrum disorders. New York: Springer;2013. p. 3096–100.