Comparison of Body Measurements and Adiposity Between Small and Appropriate for Gestational Age Term Neonates: An Observational Study

Q4 Medicine Journal of Neonatology Pub Date : 2023-10-05 DOI:10.1177/09732179231202187
M. Madhu, V. Harini, Praveen Nayak, Rathika D. Shenoy
{"title":"Comparison of Body Measurements and Adiposity Between Small and Appropriate for Gestational Age Term Neonates: An Observational Study","authors":"M. Madhu, V. Harini, Praveen Nayak, Rathika D. Shenoy","doi":"10.1177/09732179231202187","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Small for gestational age (SGA) infants have preserved adipose tissue compared to appropriate for gestational age (AGA) infants. This forms the basis of the fetal origin of adult disease. Studies show that Indian babies are ‘thin’ but ‘fat’ compared to babies born in high-income countries. Skin fold thickness (SFT) is a measure of adiposity. Objective To compare the newborn adiposity by SFT in term moderate SGA infants and term AGA infants. Methods We included 222 term newborns, 62 moderate SGA, and 160 AGA with no fetal growth restriction. Babies born to mothers with obesity, abnormal weight gain, pregnancy-related illnesses, and severe SGA were excluded. Weight, length, head circumference, and other circumferences (mid-upper-arm, abdominal, and mid-thigh) and SFT (Anterior abdomen, quadriceps or mid-thigh, triceps, and subscapular) were measured. The mean SD scores were calculated for each of the measurements. Comparisons were made using independent sample t-test. Results Weight, length, circumferences, and SFT were significantly lower ( p < .001) in the SGA infants compared to AGA. Among AGA, the mean standard deviation (SD) scores of all measures ranged between 0.1 and 0.5. However, in the SGA group, the mean SD scores for SFT showed minimal deviation (–0.3 to –0.5) compared to anthropometry (–0.7 to –1.2) and circumferences (–0.5 and –0.7), demonstrating the preservation of newborn adiposity. All the SFTs showed a moderate correlation ( r = 0.4) with the newborn weight and circumferences. There was no correlation to the anthropometry of non-obese mothers. Conclusion Term SGA newborns showed preservation of adiposity compared to AGA newborns.","PeriodicalId":16516,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Neonatology","volume":"76 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Neonatology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09732179231202187","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background Small for gestational age (SGA) infants have preserved adipose tissue compared to appropriate for gestational age (AGA) infants. This forms the basis of the fetal origin of adult disease. Studies show that Indian babies are ‘thin’ but ‘fat’ compared to babies born in high-income countries. Skin fold thickness (SFT) is a measure of adiposity. Objective To compare the newborn adiposity by SFT in term moderate SGA infants and term AGA infants. Methods We included 222 term newborns, 62 moderate SGA, and 160 AGA with no fetal growth restriction. Babies born to mothers with obesity, abnormal weight gain, pregnancy-related illnesses, and severe SGA were excluded. Weight, length, head circumference, and other circumferences (mid-upper-arm, abdominal, and mid-thigh) and SFT (Anterior abdomen, quadriceps or mid-thigh, triceps, and subscapular) were measured. The mean SD scores were calculated for each of the measurements. Comparisons were made using independent sample t-test. Results Weight, length, circumferences, and SFT were significantly lower ( p < .001) in the SGA infants compared to AGA. Among AGA, the mean standard deviation (SD) scores of all measures ranged between 0.1 and 0.5. However, in the SGA group, the mean SD scores for SFT showed minimal deviation (–0.3 to –0.5) compared to anthropometry (–0.7 to –1.2) and circumferences (–0.5 and –0.7), demonstrating the preservation of newborn adiposity. All the SFTs showed a moderate correlation ( r = 0.4) with the newborn weight and circumferences. There was no correlation to the anthropometry of non-obese mothers. Conclusion Term SGA newborns showed preservation of adiposity compared to AGA newborns.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
一项观察性研究:胎龄小和适宜足月新生儿体重测量和肥胖的比较
背景:与适宜胎龄(AGA)婴儿相比,小胎龄(SGA)婴儿保存了脂肪组织。这构成了成人疾病胎儿起源的基础。研究表明,与高收入国家出生的婴儿相比,印度婴儿“瘦”但“胖”。皮肤褶皱厚度(SFT)是衡量肥胖程度的一个指标。目的比较中度SGA足月儿和AGA足月儿的SFT对新生儿肥胖的影响。方法222例足月新生儿,62例中度SGA, 160例无胎儿生长受限的AGA。排除了肥胖、体重异常增加、妊娠相关疾病和严重SGA的母亲所生的婴儿。测量体重、长度、头围和其他围围(上臂中部、腹部和大腿中部)和SFT(前腹部、股四头肌或大腿中部、三头肌和肩胛下)。计算每次测量的平均SD分数。比较采用独立样本t检验。结果体重、长度、周长和SFT均显著降低(p <与AGA相比,SGA婴儿的死亡率为0.001)。在AGA中,所有测量的平均标准差(SD)得分在0.1 ~ 0.5之间。然而,在SGA组中,与人体测量(-0.7至-1.2)和周长(-0.5和-0.7)相比,SFT的平均SD评分显示最小偏差(-0.3至-0.5),表明新生儿肥胖的保存。所有SFTs均与新生儿体重和围度呈中等相关性(r = 0.4)。这与非肥胖母亲的人体测量没有关联。结论足月SGA新生儿与AGA新生儿相比,存在脂肪保存。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Neonatology
Journal of Neonatology Medicine-Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
55
期刊最新文献
Post-operative Ultrashort Bowel Syndrome in a Term Neonate: One-year Follow-up Silent Struggles Beyond Breath: Decoding Hemostatic Dynamics and Bleeding in Neonates Affected by Perinatal Asphyxia Breast Milk Output and Factors Influencing Sustained Feeding with Mother’s Own Milk in Very Preterm Births: A Prospective Observational Study Assessment of Central Catheter Tip Position in Neonates by Ultrasonography Versus X-ray Kangaroo Mother Care Foundation, India: Champion Organization Focusing on the Essentials
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1