Positional preference: prevalence in infants and follow-up after two years.

OBJECTIVES 1) To determine the prevalence of positional preference in the general population of infants up to the age of 6 months; 2) to gather information on possible risk factors; 3) to determine the percentage of children with positional preference undergoing diagnostic evaluation and/or treatment; and 4) to assess the overall outcome of positional preference in infants and toddlers, with currently used diagnostic and treatment practices. SETTING Infant health care centers in The Netherlands. METHODS Seven thousand six hundred nine infants below the age of 6 months were screened for positional preference (cases: n = 623). Anamnestic data and physical signs of asymmetry of the range of motion and the shape of the head were recorded. These data were also registered of an immediate next child visiting the infant health care center with the same sex and about the same age but without positional preference (controls: n = 554). In a first follow-up study, 6 to 8 months after the original study, 468 of the 623 children with positional preference were reexamined for asymmetry of the range of motion and the shape of the head. In a second follow-up study, 24 to 32 months after the original study, 129 of 259 children who still had shown signs of asymmetry in the first follow-up study were again reexamined. RESULTS The prevalence of positional preference was 8.2% and was highest in children below 16 weeks of age. The boy:girl ratio was 3:2. Firstborns, premature children, and children with breech position at the time of delivery proved to have a higher risk for positional preference. The supine sleeping position of the child and a strong preference in offering the feeding always from the right or the left side were positively correlated with positional preference. In the first follow-up study, 12% still showed restricted active range of motion, 8% restricted passive range of motion, 47% asymmetric flattening of the occiput, and 23% of the forehead. Thirty-two percent of the children with positional preference had been referred for diagnostical/therapeutical intervention. In the second follow-up study, active range of motion was restricted in 6%, passive rotation in 2%, 45% had an asymmetric flattening of the occiput, and 21% of the forehead. CONCLUSION Positional preference is frequently observed (8.2%) in The Netherlands. It leads to referral, additional diagnostics and, if necessary, treatment of almost 1 of every 3 affected children. Extrapolated to the original population in 1995, 2.4% of all children would still have a restricted range of motion and/or flattening of the skull at the age of 2 to 3 years. The high prevalence of positional preference in infancy, the persistency of accompanying signs, the large number of children referred for further diagnostic and/or treatment, and the resulting high medical expenses strongly call for a primary preventive approach.positional preference, deformational plagiocephaly, asymmetry, infants, population-based study.

[1]  C. Good,et al.  The hip in the moulded baby syndrome. , 1984, Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-british Volume.

[2]  S. D. Moss Nonsurgical, nonorthotic treatment of occipital plagiocephaly: what is the natural history of the misshapen neonatal head? , 1997, Journal of neurosurgery.

[3]  C. Hunt,et al.  Does supine sleeping cause asymmetric heads? , 1996, Pediatrics.

[4]  H. Rekate Occipital plagiocephaly: a critical review of the literature. , 1997, Journal of neurosurgery.

[5]  K M Kelly,et al.  Multiple-birth infants at higher risk for development of deformational plagiocephaly. , 1999, Pediatrics.

[6]  J L Marsh,et al.  Observations on a recent increase in plagiocephaly without synostosis. , 1996, Pediatrics.

[7]  J. Jantz,et al.  A motor milestone change noted with a change in sleep position. , 1997, Archives of pediatrics & adolescent medicine.

[8]  H. Kingma,et al.  Head position in low-risk premature infants. Impact of nursing routines. , 1988, Biology of the neonate.

[9]  K. Palmén Prevention of congenital dislocation of the hip. The Swedish experience of neonatal treatment of hip joint instability. , 1984, Acta orthopaedica Scandinavica. Supplementum.

[10]  G. Fulford,et al.  Position as a Cause of Deformity in Children with Cerebral Palsy , 1976, Developmental medicine and child neurology.

[11]  I. Pollack,et al.  Diagnosis and management of posterior plagiocephaly. , 1997, Pediatrics.

[12]  Hal B. Jenson,et al.  Nelson Textbook of Pediatrics , 1965 .

[13]  P. Dunn Congenital sternomastoid torticollis , 1974, Archives of disease in childhood.

[14]  P. Dunn Congenital postural deformities. , 1976, British medical bulletin.

[15]  P. Kostense,et al.  Cot death and prone sleeping position in The Netherlands. , 1989, BMJ.

[16]  T. Littlefield,et al.  Treatment of Craniofacial Asymmetry With Dynamic Orthotic Cranioplasty , 1998, The Journal of craniofacial surgery.

[17]  J. Mulliken,et al.  Frontal plagiocephaly: synostotic, compensational, or deformational. , 1992, Plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[18]  C. Hamanishi,et al.  Turned head--adducted hip--truncal curvature syndrome. , 1994, Archives of disease in childhood.

[19]  Vocal cord paralysis as a presentation of intrauterine infection with varicella-zoster virus. , 1996, Pediatrics.

[20]  J. Golding,et al.  Does the Supine Sleeping Position Have Any Adverse Effects on the Child? II. Development in the First 18 Months , 1998, Pediatrics.

[21]  [Prone position favors motor development of infants]. , 1998, Nederlands tijdschrift voor geneeskunde.

[22]  M. Earley,et al.  Posterior plagiocephaly: proactive conservative management. , 1999, British journal of plastic surgery.