GROWTH, MATURATION & FUNCTIONAL OUTCOME OF EXTREME LOW BIRTH WEIGHT ADOLESCENTS

极低出生体重儿的存活率(ELBW，21,000 克)有所增加。人们对它们的长期增长知之甚少 儿童期中期以后的功能状态。这项研究的目的是 比较低出生体重儿的生长、性成熟和功能结局 青少年至正常出生体重(NBW，32,500克)青少年和至 将功能结果与体格发育相关联。 本研究采用横断面设计。我们包括53个ELBW和53个NBW 12至18岁的青少年，没有主要的神经- 发育性残疾(中度脑瘫、智力低下、 耳聋和/或失明)与年龄、性别、种族和社会经济相匹配 状态。人体测量(z分数)，骨骼发育 质量和成分评估(双能X射线吸收法、DEXA、 和骨龄)、性成熟和功能状态(使用Peabody 图片词汇测验与视觉运动整合 发育测验[VMI]、行为、自尊和生活质量 措施)。 受试者中58.5%为女性，41.5%为男性；43.34%为黑人，56.6%为白人。 平均年龄(14.85岁)和Hollinghead的社会经济评分相似 对这两组人来说。平均出生体重为849克。对于ELBW和3355 GM。为 NBW。低出生体重儿的平均头围较低(0.01比1.2， P&lt；.001)，平均身高(-0.37比0.28，P=0.0005)和体重(0.01比0.84， P+.008)z分数。不同组间的性成熟情况相似。vbl.使用 DEXA、ELBW青少年的总瘦体重、总肌肉质量、总体重 脂肪和总骨矿含量。然而，体脂百分比和 总脂肪/瘦肉量和总骨含量的比率。然而，10%的 体脂和总脂肪/瘦体重和总骨含量/瘦体重的比率 质量没有什么不同。骨密度无显著差异。 不同群体之间的差异。骨龄，以标准差测量 单位，ELBW组更高(0.86比0.42，P=0.04)。PPVT-R (89.5vs102.7，P=0.0001)和VMI(84.6vs90.9，P=0.006)得分较低 为了ELBW。ELBW组身高与PPVT-R和VMI评分相关。 总而言之，在没有主要神经的情况下存活的ELBW青少年 然而，发育障碍的人体测量值较低， 身体成分和性成熟与NBW青少年相似。在……上面 我们使用的词汇测试和视觉运动整合测试，ELBW 青少年的得分低于NBW青少年，这些分数是 与我们样本中ELBW青少年的身高测量有关。

Survival of infants born at extremely low birth weight (ELBW, 21,000 grams) has increased. Little is known about their long term growth and functional status beyond middle childhood. The purpose of this study was to compare growth, sexual maturation and functional outcome of ELBW adolescents to normal birth weight (NBW, 32,500 grams) adolescents and to correlate findings of functional outcome with physcal growth. This study had a cross sectional design. We included 53 ELBW and 53 NBW adolescents between 12 and 18 years of age without major neuro- developmental disability (moderate cerebral palsy, mental retardation, deafness and/or blindness) matched by age, sex, race and socioeconomic status. Anthropometric measurements (z-scores), development of skeletal mass and composition assessment (dual energy x-ray absorptiometry, DEXA, and bone age), sexual maturation and functional status (using Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test [PPVT-RR] and Visual Motor Integration Developmental test [VMI], behavioral, self esteem and quality of life measures) were obtained. Subjects were 58.5% female, 41.5% males; 43.34% black and 56.6% white. Mean age (14.85 years) and Hollingshead socioeconomic score were similar for both groups. Mean birth weight was 849 gm. for ELBW and 3355 gm. for NBW. ELBW adolescents had lower mean head circumference (0.01 vs. 1.2, P<.001), mean height (-0.37 vs. 0.28, P=.0005) and weight (0.01 vs. 0.84, P+.008) z-scores. Sexual maturation was similar between groups. Using DEXA, ELBW adolescents had lower total lean mass, total muscle mass, total fat and total bone mineral content. However, percent of body fat and ratios of total fat/lean mass and total bone content. However, percent of body fat and ratios of total fat/lean mass and total bone content/lean mass were not different. Bone mineral density was not significantly different between the groups. Bone age, measured in standard deviation units, was higher on the ELBW groups (0.86 vs. 0.42, P=.04). the PPVT-R (89.5 vs 102.7, P=<.0001) and VMI (84.6 vs 90.9, P=.006) scores were lower for ELBW. Height correlated with PPVT-R and VMI scores in the ELBW group. In summary, ELBW adolescents who survived without a major neuro- developmental disability have lower anthropometric measurements, however, similar body composition and sexual maturation than NBW adolescents. On the vocabulary tests and visual motor integration tests we used, ELBW adolescents scored lower than NBW adolescents and these scores were associated with height measurements in our sample of ELBW adolescents.