Sucking behaviour in infants born preterm and developmental outcomes at primary school age

Abstract

Abnormal sucking between 42 weeks and 50 weeks postmenstrual age may reflect abnormal neurological functioning in children born preterm.

Changes in infant non-nutritive sucking throughout a suck sample at 3-months of age

“…Thus, early NNS patterning can serve as an early marker of neonatal brain function. In addition to indicating current brain function, emerging data is available linking neonatal NNS to subsequent neurodevelopment [18]. More specifically, neonatal NNS has been associated with total motor skills, balance, total intelligence, verbal intelligence, performance intelligence, and language at age five, with better neonatal NNS relating to higher test scores [18].…”

Standardized motor assessments before the age of five predicting school-aged motor outcome including DCD: A systematic review

“…A total of fourteen distinctive instruments were applied before 5y: GmA[26e39], Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID) [36,40e48], MOS, Peabody Developmental Motor Scales (PDMS) [49e51], Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) [47,48], Motor subtests of the Griffiths Mental Development Scales (GMDS) [50,52], Ages and Stages Questionnaire (ASQ) [53,54], Movement Assessment Battery for Children (M-ABC) [55], Neurological, Sensory, Motor, Developmental Assessment (NSMDA) [56], Motor scale of the Neonatal Behavioral Assessment Scale (NBAS), Combined Assessment of Motor Performance and Behavior (CAMPB) [57], Neonatal Oral-Motor Assessment Scale (NOMAS) [58] and NEPSY Copy Design Task [54]. Seventeen studies reported motor assessments before 6 months (m) [26e35,37e40, 43,44,48,53,58], fifteen between 6m and 2y [36,40e44,46e53,56] and eight between 2 and 5y [45,49,50,53e57]. Within the baseline assessment age of this review (before 5y), eight studies evaluated children twice [26,30,32,33,36,38,41,50,52], seven studies evaluated children three times [27,28,30,40,42,46,47,56], and six studies evaluated children four times or more [36,43,44,48,...…”

“…Seventeen studies reported motor assessments before 6 months (m) [26e35,37e40, 43,44,48,53,58], fifteen between 6m and 2y [36,40e44,46e53,56] and eight between 2 and 5y [45,49,50,53e57]. Within the baseline assessment age of this review (before 5y), eight studies evaluated children twice [26,30,32,33,36,38,41,50,52], seven studies evaluated children three times [27,28,30,40,42,46,47,56], and six studies evaluated children four times or more [36,43,44,48,51,58]. Outcome measures were defined as (probable) DCD in four studies, cMND in five studies and significant motor delay on a standardized assessment in 23 studies.…”

“…The included data of one study may suggest some evidence for the predictive value of NOMAS (Appendix B - Table 12). Wolthuis-Stigter et al indicated that a normal sucking pattern in a mixed group of children at 50w post-menstrual age (PMA), but not 40w PMA, was associated with better M-ABC-I-scores 5y [58]. In contrast, children with prolonged definitely abnormal sucking patterns were more likely to experience low M-ABC-I-scores.…”

Preterm sucking behaviour and later neurodevelopment

“…However, the prognostic significance of abnormal sucking behaviour in infants born preterm remains a subject of debate. The paper by Wolthuis‐Stigter et al . provides a valuable contribution to this discussion, investigating the predictive relation between a standard measure of early sucking behaviour and later neurodevelopmental outcomes, including cognitive and language measures at school age.…”