Download PDF
Journal of Pediatric Neurology 2019; 17(05): 168-175
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1668162
Original Article
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Change in Head Shape of Newborn Infants in the Week following Birth: Contributing Factors

Pierre Frémondière
1   Aix Marseille Univ, EU3M, Marseille, France
2   Aix Marseille Univ, CNRS, EFS, ADES, Marseille, France
,
François Marchal
2   Aix Marseille Univ, CNRS, EFS, ADES, Marseille, France
,
Lionel Thollon
3   Aix Marseille Univ, IFSTTAR, LBA, Marseille, France
,
Bérangère Saliba-serre
2   Aix Marseille Univ, CNRS, EFS, ADES, Marseille, France
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

02 March 2018

06 July 2018

Publication Date:
14 August 2018 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

The aim of this work is to assess the influence of design factors: continuous numerical variables (age at first measurement, time lapse, and birth weight) and nominal categorical variables (sex of neonate, delivery outcome) on the neonatal head shape change. Sixty newborns were included in this study and 13 cephalometric variables were measured. Multiple linear regressions with change from baseline were performed. Country of birth of the mothers, centile scale of birth weight, and degree of flexion were used in a descriptive analysis. The suboccipitobregmatic difference is significantly correlated with the age at the first measurement (B = 0.058; p = 0.008). Only two cephalometric variables are correlated with the time lapse between measurements: the bitragion difference (B = –0.042; p = 0.039) and the head circumference (B = 0.056; p = 0.047). The biparietal difference is significantly correlated with the birth weight (B = –0.001; p = 0.038), and the mentovertical difference is significantly correlated with the sex “female” (B = 2.764; p = 0.025). Concerning the delivery outcomes, the suboccipitofrontal difference is significantly correlated with the cesarean section (B = 2.455; p = 0.012), and the occipitofrontal difference is significantly correlated with the Thierry's spatula extraction (B = 2.097; p = 0.048). Results suggest that instrumental extractions may have an important impact on neonatal head shape change. When operative intervention in the second stage of labor is required, the options, risks, and benefits of vacuum and forceps must be considered given the possible neonatal complications (cephalohematomas, retinal hemorrhages, external ocular injuries, facial nerve palsies).

Keywords

birth - cephalometry - head - molding
 

  • References

  • 1 Baum JD, Searls D. Head shape and size of newborn infants. Dev Med Child Neurol 1971; 13 (05) 572-575
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Souza SW, Ross J, Milner RDG. Alterations in head shape of newborn infants after caesarean section or vaginal delivery. Arch Dis Child 1976; 51 (08) 624-627
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Turkewitz G, Creighton S. Changes in lateral differentiation of head posture in the human neonate. Dev Psychobiol 1975; 8 (01) 85-89
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Laughlin J, Luerssen TG, Dias MS. ; Committee on Practice and Ambulatory Medicine, Section on Neurological Surgery. Prevention and management of positional skull deformities in infants. Pediatrics 2011; 128 (06) 1236-1241
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Sann L, David L, Thomas A, Frederich A, Chapuy MC, François R. Congenital hyperparathyroidism and vitamin D deficiency secondary to maternal hypoparathyroidism. Acta Paediatr Scand 1976; 65 (03) 381-385
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Eyles DW, Feron F, Cui X. , et al. Developmental vitamin D deficiency causes abnormal brain development. Psychoneuroendocrinology 2009; 34 (Suppl. 01) S247-S257
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Kriewall TJ, Stys SJ, McPherson GK. Neonatal head shape after delivery: an index of molding. J Perinat Med 1977; 5 (06) 260-267
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Ismail AQ, Ismail KM. Exploring variation in dimensions of obstetric forceps. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2016; 198: 170-171
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Ismail AQ, Yates D, Chester J, Ismail KMK. Exploring the newborn head diameters in relation to current obstetric forceps' dimensions: a systematic review. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2018; 220: 25-29
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Frémondière P, Thollon L, Adalian P, Delotte J, Marchal F. Which foetal-pelvic variables are useful for predicting caesarean section and instrumental assistance?. Med Princ Pract 2017; 26 (04) 359-367
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Frémondière P. Which foetal pelvic variables are useful for predicting right-rotational or left-rotational birth?. Obstet Gynecol Rep 2017; 1: 1-5
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Peduzzi P, Concato J, Kemper E, Holford TR, Feinstein AR. A simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 1996; 49 (12) 1373-1379
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Hooker TN, Brown DH. A photographic method for accurately measuring the growth of crustose and foliose saxicolous lichens. Lichenol 1977; 9: 65-75
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Schaal JP, Riethmuller D. Engagement. In: Schaal JP, Riethmuller D, Maillet R, Uzan M. , eds. Mecanique & Techniques Obstetricales. Paris: Sauramps Médical; 2007: 245-258
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Mamelle N, Cochet V, Claris O. Definition of fetal growth restriction according to constitutional growth potential. Biol Neonate 2001; 80 (04) 277-285
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Frémondière P, Fournié A. Fetal-pelvic disproportion and X-ray pelvimetry [in French]. Gynecol Obstet Fertil 2011; 39 (01) 8-11
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Videau Y, Saliba-Serre B, Paraponaris A, Ventelou B. Why patients of low socioeconomic status with mental health problems have shorter consultations with general practitioners. J Health Serv Res Policy 2010; 15 (02) 76-81
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Applied Logistic Regression. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Wiley; 2000: 91-142
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Addinsoft SARL. XLSTAT software, version 1.02. Bordeaux, France: 2013
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Van Pelt JK. Measurements of the diameters of the foetal head at term: collected from seven hundred cases of labour. Am J Med Sci 1860; 39: 111-114
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Marpeau L, Sergent F, Manson F, Verspyck E, Eurin D. Mechanisms of the stagnation of dilatation in the active phase of labor [in French]. Gynecol Obstet Fertil 2002; 30: 282-285
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Peultier AS, Cazenave N, Boog G. Is there still any interest of x-ray pelvimetry for women with a scarred uterus [in French]. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris) 2010; 39 (01) 50-55
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Barasinski C, Debost-Legrand A, Lemery D, Vendittelli F. Practices during the active second stage of labor: a survey of French midwives. Midwifery 2018; 60: 48-55
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Moloy HC. Studies of head molding during labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1942; 44: 762-782
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Pu F, Xu L, Li D. , et al. Effect of different labor forces on fetal skull molding. Med Eng Phys 2011; 33 (05) 620-625
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Johanson RB, Menon V. Vacuum Extraction vs. Forceps for Assisted Vaginal Delivery (Cochrane Review). In: The Cochrane Library. Issue I. Oxford: Update Software; 2003
    Google Scholar
  • 27 Cargill YM, MacKinnon CJ, Arsenault MY. , et al; Clinical Practice Obstetrics Committee. Guidelines for operative vaginal birth. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2004; 26 (08) 747-761
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Ifflaender S, Rüdiger M, Koch A, Burkhardt W. Three-dimensional digital capture of head size in neonates - a method evaluation. PLoS One 2013; 8 (04) e61274
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Sardi ML, Ventrice F, Ramírez Rozzi F. Allometries throughout the late prenatal and early postnatal human craniofacial ontogeny. Anat Rec (Hoboken) 2007; 290 (09) 1112-1120
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar