Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2011 Sep;53(9):829-835.
doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8749.2011.04023.x. Epub 2011 Jun 27.

Oral and non-oral sensorimotor interventions enhance oral feeding performance in preterm infants

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Oral and non-oral sensorimotor interventions enhance oral feeding performance in preterm infants

Sandra Fucile et al. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2011 Sep.

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study was to determine whether oral, tactile/kinaesthetic (T/K), or combined (oral+T/K) interventions enhance oral feeding performance and whether combined interventions have an additive/synergistic effect.

Method: Seventy-five preterm infants (mean gestational age 29 wk; standard error of the mean [SEM] 0.3 wk; mean birthweight 1340.3g; SEM 52.5 g; 49 males and 26 females) were randomly assigned to one of three intervention groups or a control group. The oral group received sensorimotor input to the oral structures, the T/K group received sensorimotor input to the trunk and limbs, and the combined group received both. The outcomes were time from introduction of nipple feeding to independent oral feeding (d), proficiency (intake in the first 5 min, %), volume transfer (%), rate of transfer (mL/min), volume loss (%), and length of hospital stay (d).

Results: Infants in the three intervention groups achieved independent oral feeding 9-10 days earlier than those in the control group (p<0.001; effect size 1.9-2.1). Proficiency (p ≤ 0.002; effect size 0.7-1.4) at the time of one to two and three to five oral feedings per day, volume transfer (p ≤ 0.001; effect size 0.8-1.1) at one to two, three to five, and six to eight oral feedings per day, and overall rate of transfer (p ≤ 0.018; effect size 0.8-1.1) were greater, and overall volume losses were less (p ≤ 0.007; effect size 0.9-1.1), than in the control group (p ≤ 0.042). The combined group attained independent oral feeding at a significantly younger postmenstrual age than controls (p=0.020) and had clinically greater proficiency than the T/K group (p=0.020; effect size 0.7) and oral group (p=0.109; effect size 0.5). Length of hospital stay was not significantly different between groups (p=0.792; effect size 0.02-0.3).

Interpretation: Oral and T/K interventions accelerated the transition from introduction to independent oral feeding and enhanced oral feeding skills. T/K has beneficial effects beyond the specific targeted system. The combined sensorimotor intervention led to an additive/synergistic effect for proficiency, further benefiting this population.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
(a) Proficiency (%) at the three oral feeding sessions. Data presented as means±(standard error of the mean, SEM). At one to two oral feedings a day, the three intervention groups had significantly greater proficiency than controls, and at three to five oral feedings a day the O and combined (O+T/K) groups had significantly greater proficiency than controls (p≤0.022, ES≥0.7). (b) Volume transfer (%) at the three oral feeding sessions. Data presented as means±(SEM). At one to two and six to eight oral feedings a day, the three intervention groups had significantly greater volume transfer than controls (p≤0.040, ES O≥0.7), and at three to five oral feedings a day only the O group demonstrated marginally greater volume transfer than controls (p=0.07, ES≥0.6). (c) Rate of transfer (ml/min) at the three oral feeding sessions. Data presented as means±(SEM). All three interventions had significantly faster rate of transfer than controls (p≤0.018, ES≥1.0). (d) Volume loss (%) at the three oral feeding sessions. Data presented as means±(SEM). All three interventions had significantly less volume loss than controls (p≤0.007, ES≥1.0).

References

    1. Burklow KA, McGrath AM, Valerius KS, Rudolph C. Relationship between feeding difficulties, medical complexity, and gestational age. Nutr Clin Pract. 2002;17:373–8. - PubMed
    1. Schanler RJ, Shulman RJ, Lau C, Smith EO, Heitkemper MM. Feeding strategies for premature infants: randomized trial of gastrointestinal priming and tube-feeding method. Pediatrics. 1999;103:434–9. - PubMed
    1. Silberstein D, Geva R, Feldman R, et al. The transition to oral feeding in low-risk premature infants: relation to infant neurobehavioral functioning and mother-infant feeding interaction. Early Hum Dev. 2009;85:157–62. - PubMed
    1. Rommel N, De Meyer AM, Feenstra L, Veereman-Wauters G. The complexity of feeding problems in 700 infants and young children presenting to a tertiary care institution. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2003;37:75–84. - PubMed
    1. Blauw-Hospers CH, Hadders-Algra M. A systematic review of the effects of early intervention on motor development. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2005;47:421–32. - PubMed

Publication types