Upper Arm Measurements of Healthy Neonates Comparing Ultrasonography and Anthropometric Methods

Objective: To compare measurements of the upper arm cross-sectional areas (total arm area,arm muscle area, and arm fat area of healthy neonates) as calculated using anthropometry with the values obtained by ultrasonography. Materials and methods: This study was performed on 60 consecutively born healthy neonates: gestational age (mean6SD) 39.661.2 weeks, birth weight 3287.16307.7 g, 27 males (45%) and 33 females (55%). Mid-arm circumference and tricipital skinfold thickness measurements were taken on the left upper mid-arm according to the conventional anthropometric method to calculate total arm area, arm muscle area and arm fat area. The ultrasound evaluation was performed at the same arm location using a Toshiba sonolayer SSA-250AÒ, which allows the calculation of the total arm area, arm muscle area and arm fat area by the number of pixels enclosed in the plotted areas. Statistical analysis: whenever appropriate, parametric and non-parametric tests were used in order to compare measurements of paired samples and of groups of samples. Results: No significant differences between males and females were found in any evaluated measurements, estimated either by anthropometry or by ultrasound. Also the median of total arm area did not differ significantly with either method (P50.337). Although there is evidence of concordance of the total arm area measurements (r50.68, 95% CI: 0.55–0.77) the two methods of measurement differed for arm muscle area and arm fat area. The estimated median of measurements by ultrasound for arm muscle area were significantly lower than those estimated by the anthropometric method, which differed by as much as 111% (P,0.001). The estimated median ultrasound measurement of the arm fat was higher than the anthropometric arm fat area by as much as 31% (P,0.001). Conclusion: Compared with ultrasound measurements using skinfold measurements and mid-arm circumference without further correction may lead to overestimation of the cross-sectional area of muscle and underestimation of the cross-sectional fat area. The correlation between the two methods could be interpreted as an indication for further search of correction factors in the equations.

Reducing Discomfort While Measuring Crown-Heel Length in Neonates

To assess the degree of discomfort caused by length measurement in neonates, performed with one or both lower limbs extended, on the first and second day after birth, with either one or both lower limbs extended. METHODS: Healthy full-term neonates were systematically sampled during the months of February and March 2004. Crown-heel length was measured, using a 1-mm precision neonatometer, at approximately 8 h and 32 h after birth, with one and both lower limbs extended. The Neonatal Facial Coding System was used to assess discomfort during measurements. Data were analysed by parametric and non-parametric tests as appropriate. RESULTS: Whatever the measurement technique, discomfort scores are significantly higher during the length measurement than at baseline. Whenever length measurements are performed, discomfort scores are significantly higher when extending both lower limbs rather than one lower limb (p < 0.006). The measured length is greater with one lower limb extended; however, the difference decreases over time, being 0.19 cm (95% CI 0.1-0.3; p < 0.001) at approximately 32 h of age. No significant differences in length were found between measurements at approximately 8 or 32 h, regardless of the technique used. The best correlation between length measurements with one or both lower limbs extended was observed at approximately 32 h after birth (r = 0.98). CONCLUSION: Measuring crown-heel length is a distressful procedure for the neonate. Measurements with one lower limb extended result in less discomfort than when both lower limbs are extended, without decreasing the accuracy.