scholarly journals Helmet Treatment of Infants With Deformational Brachycephaly

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 2333794X1880561 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin M. Kelly ◽  
Edward F. Joganic ◽  
Stephen P. Beals ◽  
Jeff A. Riggs ◽  
Mary Kay McGuire ◽  
...  

Deformation of the cranium in infancy represents a spectrum of deformity, ranging from severe asymmetric yet proportional distortion of the skull in plagiocephaly, to nearly symmetric yet disproportional distortion in brachycephaly. As such, the condition is best described as deformational plagiocephaly-brachycephaly with isolated plagiocephaly and/or isolated brachycephaly being at either ends of the spectrum. Due to its symmetric appearance, deformational brachycephaly is often incorrectly dismissed as being less concerning, and it has sometimes erroneously been reported that brachycephaly cannot be treated successfully with a cranial orthosis. We prospectively report on 4205 infants with isolated deformational brachycephaly treated with a cranial orthosis from 2013 to 2017. These results demonstrate that the orthosis is successful in the treatment of deformational brachycephaly with an 81.4% improvement toward normal (95.0 to 89.4) in cephalic index. We furthermore demonstrate that entrance age influences treatment results, with younger infants demonstrating both improved outcomes and shorter treatment times.

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 21 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valkama ◽  
Aarnivala ◽  
Sato ◽  
Harila ◽  
Heikkinen ◽  
...  

Developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) may require early abduction treatment with infants sleeping on their back for the first few months of life. As sleeping on back is known to cause deformational plagiocephaly, we assessed school age children treated for dislocation or subluxation of the hip-joint in infancy. Plagiocephaly was analyzed by using cephalic index (CI) and oblique cranial length ratio (OCLR) as anthropometric measurements from 2D digital vertex view photographs. Six of the 58 (10.3%) DDH children and only one of the 62 (1.6%) control children had plagiocephaly (p = 0.041). Furthermore, cross bite was found in 14 (24.1%) of the DDH children and in 7 (10.3%) of the control children. Developmental dysplasia of the hip in infancy was associated with cranial asymmetries and malocclusions at school age. Preventive measures should be implemented.


Author(s):  
Kevin M Kelly ◽  
Edward Joganic ◽  
Stephen P Beals ◽  
Jeff A Riggs ◽  
Mary Kay McGuire ◽  
...  

OBJECTIVES The study objectives were to prospectively evaluate treatment results of infants presenting with isolated deformational brachycephaly following use of a cranial orthosis, and to investigate the role of entrance age on efficacy of treatment. Abstract PDF  Link: https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/cpoj/article/view/32024/24441 How to cite: Kelly K.M, Joganic E, Beals S.P, Riggs J.A, McGuire M.K, Littlefield T.R. A PROSPECTIVE STUDY OF CRANIAL ORTHOTIC TREATMENT OF INFANTS WITH ISOLATED DEFORMATIONAL BRACHYCEPHALY. CANADIAN PROSTHETICS & ORTHOTICS JOURNAL, VOLUME 1, ISSUE 2, 2018; ABSTRACT, ORAL PRESENTATION AT THE AOPA’S 101ST NATIONAL ASSEMBLY, SEPT. 26-29, VANCOUVER, CANADA, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v1i2.32024                                                                            Abstracts were Peer-reviewed by the American Orthotic Prosthetic Association (AOPA) 101st National Assembly Scientific Committee.  http://www.aopanet.org/


2012 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-21
Author(s):  
Patti Martin ◽  
Nannette Nicholson ◽  
Charia Hall

Family support has evolved from a buzzword of the 1990s to a concept founded in theory, mandated by federal law, valued across disciplines, and espoused by both parents and professionals. This emphasis on family-centered practices for families of young children with disabilities, coupled with federal policy initiatives and technological advances, served as the impetus for the development of Early Hearing Detection and Intervention (EHDI) programs (Nicholson & Martin, in press). White, Forsman, Eichwald, and Muñoz (2010) provide an excellent review of the evolution of EHDI systems, which include family support as one of their 9 components. The National Center for Hearing Assessment and Management (NCHAM), the Maternal and Child Health Bureau, and the Center for Disease Control Centers cosponsored the first National EHDI Conference. This conference brought stakeholders including parents, practitioners, and researchers from diverse backgrounds together to form a learning collaborative (Forsman, 2002). Attendees represented a variety of state, national, and/or federal agencies and organizations. This forum focused effort on the development of EHDI programs infused with translating research into practices and policy. When NCHAM, recognizing the critical role of family support in the improvement of outcomes for both children and families, created a think tank to investigate the concept of a conference centered on support for families of children who are deaf or hard of hearing in 2005, the “Investing in Family Support” (IFSC) conference was born. This conference was specifically designed to facilitate and enhance EHDI efforts within the family support arena. From this venue, a model of family support was conceptualized and has served as the cornerstone of the IFSC annual conference since 2006. Designed to be a functional framework, the IFSC model delineates where and how families find support. In this article, we will promote and encourage continued efforts towards defining operational measures and program components to ultimately quantify success as it relates to improved outcomes for these children and their families. The authors view this opportunity to revisit the theoretical underpinnings of family support, the emerging research in this area, and the basics of the IFSC Model of Family Support as a call to action. We challenge professionals who work with children identified as deaf or hard of hearing to move family support from conceptualization to practices that are grounded in evidence and ever mindful of the unique and dynamic nature of individual families.


2001 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-3
Author(s):  
Robert H. Haralson

Abstract The AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Fifth Edition, was published in November 2000 and contains major changes from its predecessor. In the Fourth Edition, all musculoskeletal evaluation and rating was described in a single chapter. In the Fifth Edition, this information has been divided into three separate chapters: Upper Extremity (13), Lower Extremity (14), and Spine (15). This article discusses changes in the spine chapter. The Models for rating spinal impairment now are called Methods. The AMA Guides, Fifth Edition, has reverted to standard terminology for spinal regions in the Diagnosis-related estimates (DRE) Method, and both it and the Range of Motion (ROM) Method now reference cervical, thoracic, and lumbar. Also, the language requiring the use of the DRE, rather than the ROM Method has been strengthened. The biggest change in the DRE Method is that evaluation should include the treatment results. Unfortunately, the Fourth Edition's philosophy regarding when and how to rate impairment using the DRE Model led to a number of problems, including the same rating of all patients with radiculopathy despite some true differences in outcomes. The term differentiator was abandoned and replaced with clinical findings. Significant changes were made in evaluation of patients with spinal cord injuries, and evaluators should become familiar with these and other changes in the Fifth Edition.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document