Top Banner
Handout Early Detection and Early Intervention for Cerebral Palsy: Groundbreaking New Tools and Treatments Presenters: Cathy Morgan PT | Cerebral Palsy Alliance Australia Iona Novak PhD OT | Cerebral Palsy Alliance Australia Alicia Spittle PhD PT | Murdoch Childrens Research Institute Australia Linda Fetters PhD PT | University of Southern California USA Purpose: The purpose of this course is to examine the very latest research data on tools that accurately predict cerebral palsy early and the emerging evidence for new and novel early interventions that effectively treat cerebral palsy (CP). Course Summary: Registers’ indicate the average age for the diagnosis of CP is 19 months. Recent neuroplasticity literature suggests that intensive, repetitive, task-specific intervention for CP ought to commence very early while the brain is most plastic, which is almost never the case when “wait and see” monitoring is occurring prior to diagnosis. It is important for those managing the care of infants and young children with motor delay discriminate as early as possible between CP and other diagnoses. The choice of evidence-based interventions and prognostic messages now differs greatly depending on diagnosis. Early motor assessment tools, brain imaging, and neurological examinations all help in predicting CP, with the most promising of these tools the General Movements Assessment. With growing evidence regarding available tools and the potential neuroplastic benefits of early intervention, we propose a major change in diagnostic and intervention practice. Timetable: TIME WHAT WHO 1.00 Introduction & Aetiological Factors Informing Intervention Four distinct groups are at risk of cerebral palsy: 1) premature infants whose risk increases as gestational age decreases; 2) infants with a stroke; 3) term born infants with neonatal encephalopathy (NE) whose risk of CP increases with increased severity of NE; and 4) “healthy” term infants born with no identifiable risk factors at birth, but are numerically the largest group of children with cerebral palsy. This section of the workshop covers the latest population prevalence data on these subgroup populations and the aetiological implications for considering the choice of interventions. Iona Novak
35

Handout Early Detection and Early Intervention for Cerebral … · Handout Early Detection and Early Intervention for Cerebral Palsy: Groundbreaking New Tools and Treatments Presenters:

Jul 27, 2018

Download

Documents

phungkhanh
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Page 1: Handout Early Detection and Early Intervention for Cerebral … · Handout Early Detection and Early Intervention for Cerebral Palsy: Groundbreaking New Tools and Treatments Presenters:

Handout Early Detection and Early Intervention for

Cerebral Palsy: Groundbreaking New Tools and

Treatments

Presenters: Cathy Morgan PT | Cerebral Palsy Alliance Australia Iona Novak PhD OT | Cerebral Palsy Alliance Australia Alicia Spittle PhD PT | Murdoch Children’s Research Institute Australia Linda Fetters PhD PT | University of Southern California USA

Purpose: The purpose of this course is to examine the very latest research data on tools that accurately predict cerebral palsy early and the emerging evidence for new and novel early interventions that effectively treat cerebral palsy (CP).

Course Summary: Registers’ indicate the average age for the diagnosis of CP is 19 months. Recent neuroplasticity literature suggests that intensive, repetitive, task-specific intervention for CP ought to commence very early while the brain is most plastic, which is almost never the case when “wait and see” monitoring is occurring prior to diagnosis. It is important for those managing the care of infants and young children with motor delay discriminate as early as possible between CP and other diagnoses. The choice of evidence-based interventions and prognostic messages now differs greatly depending on diagnosis. Early motor assessment tools, brain imaging, and neurological examinations all help in predicting CP, with the most promising of these tools the General Movements Assessment. With growing evidence regarding available tools and the potential neuroplastic benefits of early intervention, we propose a major change in diagnostic and intervention practice.

Timetable:

TIME WHAT WHO 1.00 Introduction & Aetiological Factors Informing Intervention

Four distinct groups are at risk of cerebral palsy: 1) premature infants – whose risk increases as

gestational age decreases; 2) infants with a stroke; 3) term born infants with neonatal encephalopathy

(NE) – whose risk of CP increases with increased severity of NE; and

4) “healthy” term infants born with no identifiable risk factors at birth, but are numerically the largest group of children with cerebral palsy.

This section of the workshop covers the latest population prevalence data on these subgroup populations and the aetiological implications for considering the choice of interventions.

Iona Novak

Page 2: Handout Early Detection and Early Intervention for Cerebral … · Handout Early Detection and Early Intervention for Cerebral Palsy: Groundbreaking New Tools and Treatments Presenters:

1.30 Early Detection/Diagnosis of Cerebral Palsy

An overview of evidence-based diagnostic, assessment, and prognostic tools for infants “at risk” of cerebral palsy, including; 1) preterms; 2) infants with stroke; 3) infants with NE; and 4) “healthy” term born infants will be discussed. Systematic review data on the tools that accuracy predicts cerebral palsy will be presented and compared. Clinical utility will also be discussed. In addition an overview of new assessments available will be provided. These data will be summarised using a video case-study and presentation of the associated child outcomes.

Alicia Spittle

2.10 Parent Perspective of Diagnosis

A video will be shown outlining: (a) parent perspectives on the impact of diagnosis; (b) their preferences for how to receive bad news; (c) plus a summary of the qualitative literature about the impact of diagnosis on parents and recommendations for diagnosticians.

2.20 Early Detection & Diagnosis - Summit Recommendations

The findings from the Early Detection and Early Intervention Summit in Vienna 2014, in terms of recommendations for early detection will be summarised, including recommendations for internationally agreed measures and agreed terminology.

Iona Novak

2.25 Early Detection - Questions All

2.35 BREAK

2.50 Motor learning in Infants at Risk of Cerebral Palsy

Motor learning based interventions are highly effective for older children with cerebral palsy and developmental coordination disorder plus adults with stroke and are therefore considered best practice paradigm for learning movement skills in many diagnostic groups. Motor learning however has not been widely tested for effectiveness in infants with cerebral palsy, partly because late diagnosis has hampered researcher’s ability to recruit children with confirmed cerebral palsy to early intervention trials. However, new research is underway, plus leading researchers in the early intervention field, believe the application of motor learning to infants aught to be a major research priority.

Linda Fetters

3.20 Early Intervention Evidence Base and New Discoveries

Based on latest evidence, experts now recommend a shift away from referral for intervention following a formal (most often late) description of CP, to one of referral for intervention which occurs immediately once an infant is considered “at high risk” of CP. A summary of the existing early intervention evidence base will be provided. Clinical pathways and decision-making trees that include assessment, treatment, and expected outcomes will be presented based on best-available evidence.

Cathy Morgan

Page 3: Handout Early Detection and Early Intervention for Cerebral … · Handout Early Detection and Early Intervention for Cerebral Palsy: Groundbreaking New Tools and Treatments Presenters:

3.50 Case Studies

Two new and novel interventions for infants at risk of cerebral palsy will be described, along with presentation of new data from rigorous international trials studying the efficacy of novel early intervention treatments. Interactive video case studies will then be presented to assist participants to simulate planning treatment activities using these new novel interventions for unilateral and bilateral cerebral palsy, and infants born premature.

Cathy Morgan /Alicia Spittle

4.30 Early Detection & Diagnosis - Summit Recommendations

The findings from the Early Detection and Early Intervention Summit in Vienna 2014, in terms of recommendations for early detection will be summarised, including recommendations for current clinical practice and future research.

Linda Fetters

4.45 Early Intervention Questions All

Page 4: Handout Early Detection and Early Intervention for Cerebral … · Handout Early Detection and Early Intervention for Cerebral Palsy: Groundbreaking New Tools and Treatments Presenters:

References: Early detection of children at risk of CP 1. Spittle A. How do we use the assessment of general movements in clinical

practice? Developmental Medicine and Child Neurolog. 2011;53(8):681-682. 2. Spittle AJ, Boyd RN, Inder TE, Doyle LW. Predicting motor development in

very preterm infants at 12 months' corrected age: the role of qualitative magnetic resonance imaging and general movements assessments. Pediatrics. 2009;123(2):512-517.

3. Spittle AJ, Brown NC, Doyle LW, et al. Quality of general movements is related to white matter pathology in very preterm infants. Pediatrics. 2008;121(5):e1184-1189.

4. Spittle AJ, Cheong J, Doyle LW, et al. Neonatal white matter abnormality predicts childhood motor impairment in very preterm children.Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology. 2011;53(11):1000-1006.

5. Spittle AJ, Doyle LW, Anderson PJ, et al. Reduced cerebellar diameter in very preterm infants with abnormal general movements. Early Hum Dev. 2010;86(1):1-5.

6. Spittle AJ, Doyle LW, Boyd RN. A systematic review of the clinimetric properties of neuromotor assessments for preterm infants during the first year of life. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology. 2008;50(4):254-266.

7. Spittle AJ, Orton J. Cerebral palsy and developmental coordination disorder in children born preterm. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2014;19(2):84-89.

8. Spittle AJ, Spencer-Smith MM, Cheong JL, et al. General Movements in Very Preterm Children and Neurodevelopment at 2 and 4 Years. Pediatrics. 2013.

9. Spittle AJ, Spencer-Smith MM, Eeles AL, et al. Does the Bayley-III Motor Scale at 2 years predict motor outcome at 4 years in very preterm children? Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology. 2013;55(5):448-452.

10. McIntyre S, Morgan C, Walker K, Novak I. Cerebral palsy-don't delay. Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews. 2013;17(2):114-129.

11. Novak I, Hines M, Goldsmith S, Barclay R. Clinical prognostic messages from a systematic review on cerebral palsy. Pediatrics. 2012;130(5):e1285-1312.

12. Bosanquet M, Copeland L, Ware R, Boyd R. A systematic review of tests to predict cerebral palsy in young children. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology. 2013;55(5):418-426.

13. Noble Y, Boyd R. Neonatal assessments for the preterm infant up to 4 months corrected age: a systematic review. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology. 2012;54(2):129-139.

14. Barbosa VM, Campbell SK, Sheftel D, Singh J, Beligere N. Longitudinal performance of infants with cerebral palsy on the Test of Infant Motor Performance and on the Alberta Infant Motor Scale. Physical & Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics. 2003;23(3):7-29.

15. Darrah J, Bartlett DJ, Maguire TO, Avison WR, Lacaze-Masmonteil T. Have infant gross motor abilities changed in 20 years? A re-evaluation of the Alberta Infant Motor Scale normative values. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology. 2014;epub ahead of print.

16. Blauw-Hospers CH, Hadders-Algra M. A systematic review of the effects of early intervention on motor development. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology. 2005;47(6):421-432.

17. Hadders-Algra M. Challenges and limitations in early intervention. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology. 2011;53 Suppl 4:52-55.

Page 5: Handout Early Detection and Early Intervention for Cerebral … · Handout Early Detection and Early Intervention for Cerebral Palsy: Groundbreaking New Tools and Treatments Presenters:

References: Motor Learning and Exploration

1. Galloway JC, Heathcock J, Bhat A, Lobo M. Feet Reaching: The interaction of experience and ability in full-term infants. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology. 2002;24:57.

2. Sargent B SN, Kubo M, Fetters L. Infant exploratory learning: influence on leg joint coordination. PLoS One. 2014;9(3):e91500.

3. Gibson EJ. Exploratory behavior in the development of perceiving acting and the acquiring of knowledge. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1988;39:1-41.

4. Thelen E. Developmental origins of motor coordination: Leg movements in human infants. Dev. Psychobiol. 1985;18:1-22.

5. Heriza CB. Comparison of leg movements in preterm infants at term with healthy full-term infants. Phys. Ther. 1988;68:1687-1693.

6. Thelen E, Fisher D. The organization of spontaneous leg movement in newborn infants. Journal of Motor Behavior. 1983;15:353-377.

7. Piek JP. A quantitative analysis of spontaneous kicking in two-month-old infants. Human Movement Science. 1996;15:707-726.

8. Vaal J, van Soest AJ, Hopkins B, Sie LTL, van der Knapp MS. Development of spontaneous leg movements in infants with and without periventricular leukomalacia. Exp. Brain Res. 2000;135:94-105.

9. Fetters L, Chen Y, Jonsdottir J, Tronick E. Kicking coordination captures differences between full-term and premature infants with white matter disorder. Human Movement Science. 2004;22:729-748.

10. Jeng S, Chen L, Yau K. Kinematic analysis of kicking movements in preterm infants with very low birth weight and full-term infants. Phys. Ther. 2002;82:148-159.

11. Thelen E, Ridley-Johnson R, Fisher D. Shifting patterns of bilateral coordination and lateral dominence in the leg movements of young infants. Dev. Psychobiol. 1983;16:29-46.

12. Fetters L, Sapir I, Chen Y, Kubo M, Tronick E. Spontaneous kicking in full-term and preterm infants with and without white matter disorder. Dev. Psychobiol. 2010;52:524-536.

13. Thelen, E., & Smith, L. B. (1994). A Dynamic Systems Approach to the Development of Cognition and Action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

14. Scholz, J. P. (1990). Dynamic pattern theory--Some implications for therapeutics. Physical Therapy, 70, 827-843.

15. Volpe, J. J. (2009). Brain injury in premature infants: A complex amalgam of destructive and developmental disturbances. The Lancet Neurology, 8, 110-124.

16. Stephens, B., & Vohr, B. (2009). Neurodevelopmental outcome of the premature infant. Pediatric Clinics of North America, 56, 631-646.

17. Rademacher N, Black D, Ulrich BD. Early spontaneous leg movements in infants born with and without myelomeningocele. Pediatric Physical Therapy. 2008;20:137-145.

18. Ulrich BD, Ulrich DA. Spontaneous leg movements of infants with down syndrome and nondisabled infants. Child Dev. 1995;66:1844-1855.

19. McKay SM, Angulo-Barroso R. Longitudinal assessment of leg motor activity and sleep patterns in infants with and without Down syndrome. Infant Behavior and Development. 2006;29:153-168.

20. Heriza CB. Organization of leg movements in preterm infants. Phys. Ther. 1988;68:1340-1346.

21. Meinecke L, Breitbach-Faller N, Bartz C, Damen R, Rau G, Disselhorst-Klug C. Movement analysis in the early detection of newborns at risk for

Page 6: Handout Early Detection and Early Intervention for Cerebral … · Handout Early Detection and Early Intervention for Cerebral Palsy: Groundbreaking New Tools and Treatments Presenters:

developing spasticity due to infantile cerebral palsy. Human Movement Science. 2006;25(2):125-144.

22. Watanabe, H., & Taga, G. (2006). General to specific development of movement patterns and memory for contingency between actions and events in young infants. Infant Behavior and Development, 29, 402-422.

23. Watanabe, H., & Taga, G. (2009). Flexibility in infant actions during arm- and leg-based learning in a mobile paradigm. Infant Behavior and Development, 32, 79-90.

24. Rovee, C. K., & Rovee, D. T. (1969). Conjugate reinforcement of infant exploratory behavior. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 8(1), 33-39.

References: Early Intervention

1. ACPR Group, Report of the Australian Cerebral Palsy Register, Birth Years 1993-2006, 2013.

2. Adams, R. C., Tapia, C., Murphy, N. A., Norwood, K. W., Burke, R. T., Friedman, S. L., ... & Wiley, S. E. (2013). Early Intervention, IDEA Part C Services, and the Medical Home: Collaboration for Best Practice and Best Outcomes. Pediatrics, 132(4), e1073-e1088

3. Baird G, McConachie H, Scrutton D. Parents' perceptions of disclosure of the diagnosis of cerebral palsy. Arch Dis Child. 2000;83(6):475-480

4. Blauw-Hospers C, and Hadders-Algra M. A systematic review of the effects of early intervention on motor development DMCN. 2005 ; 47:421-432.

5. Damiano, D.l. (2013). Effects of motor activity on brain and muscle development in cerebral palsy (Chapeter 9, pp.189-198). In Cerebral Palsy in Infnacy. RB Shepherd (Ed). London: Elsevier.

6. Fetters, L. Perspective on Variability in the Development of Human Action, Phys Ther 2010; 90: 1860-1867

7. Himpens, E., Van den Broeck, C., Oostra, A., et al. (2008). Prevalence, type, distribution, and severity of cerebral palsy in relation to gestational age: a meta-analytic review. DMCN 50(5): 334-340.

8. Krageloh-Mann, I. and Horber, V. (2007). The role of magnetic resonance imaging in elucidating the pathogenesis of cerebral palsy: a systematic review. DMCN 49(2): 144-151.

9. Lobo M, and Galloway C. The onset of reaching significantly impacts how infants explore both objects and their bodies. Infant Behav Dev 2013; 26: 14-24.

10. Maitre NL, Slaughter JC, Aschner JL. Early prediction of cerebral palsy after neonatal intensive care using motor development trajectories in infancy. Early human dev. 2013

11. Morgan, C. Novak, I., Badawi, N. (2013). Enriched environments and motor outcomes in cerebral palsy: systematic review and meta analysis. Pediatrics, 132(3), e735-e746.

12. Morgan C, Novak I, Dale R and Badawi N. (2014). Optimising motor learning of infants at high risk of cerebral palsy: a pilot study. (Under Review)

13. Novak, I., McIntyre, S., Morgan, C., Campbell, L., Dark, L., Morton, N., Stumbles, E., Wilson, S.A. & Goldsmith, S. (2013). State of the evidence: Systematic review of interventions for children with cerebral palsy. DMCN, 55(10): 885-910.

Page 7: Handout Early Detection and Early Intervention for Cerebral … · Handout Early Detection and Early Intervention for Cerebral Palsy: Groundbreaking New Tools and Treatments Presenters:

14. Novak, I. (2014). Evidence to practice commentary: New evidence in coaching interventions. Physical & Occupational Therapy In Pediatrics, (In press).

15. Novak I, Cusick A, Lannin N. (2009) Occupational therapy Home Programmes for cerebral palsy: double blind randomized controlled trial. Pediatrics; 24: e606-614

16. Orton, J., Spittle, A., Doyle, L., Anderson, P., & Boyd, R. (2009). Do early intervention programmes improve cognitive and motor outcomes for preterm infants after discharge? A systematic review. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 51(11), 851-859.

17. Palisano, R., Rosenbaum, P., Walter, S., et al. (1997). Development and reliability of a system to classify gross motor function in children with cerebral palsy. Dev Med Child Neurol 39(4): 214-223.

18. Shepherd R. (2013). Cerebral Palsy in Infancy: targeted activity to optimize early growth and development. Edinburgh: Elsevier

19. Ulrich B.(2010) Opportunities for early intervention based on theory, neuroscience and clinical science. Physical Therapy; 90 (12): 1868-1880.

20. Woolfson, L.H. (1999). Educational interventions for infants and pre‐school children with cerebral palsy: methodological difficulties and future directions in evaluation research. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 14(3): 240-253.

Page 8: Handout Early Detection and Early Intervention for Cerebral … · Handout Early Detection and Early Intervention for Cerebral Palsy: Groundbreaking New Tools and Treatments Presenters:

AACPDM WORKSHOP: Early Detection and Early Intervention for Cerebral Palsy: Groundbreaking New Tools and Treatments

Participant Worksheet

Case Study Cassie

Diagnosis High risk of CP

Imaging Extensive infarct: posterior frontal & temporal, bilateral parietal,

& occipital lobes

WMI: frontal lobes & insular cortex

Age 6 months

Background First child

Term born

IUGR

Feto-maternal hemorrhage

HIE

GGooaallss ffoorr IInntteerrvveennttiioonn

Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM)

Occupational Performance Problems Performance Satisfaction

Independently rolling in both directions 6 6

Bringing toys together in the midline with her hands

8 8

Feeding herself ; either with her hands or holding spoon

1 8

Sitting more independently 1 8

IInntteerrvveennttiioonn PPllaann

Active motor

Interventions

Parent

Education

Environment

Enrichment

Page 9: Handout Early Detection and Early Intervention for Cerebral … · Handout Early Detection and Early Intervention for Cerebral Palsy: Groundbreaking New Tools and Treatments Presenters:

AACPDM WORKSHOP: Early Detection and Early Intervention for Cerebral Palsy: Groundbreaking New Tools and Treatments

Participant Worksheet

Case Study: Zayd

Diagnosis High risk of CP

Imaging Grade III intraventricular haemorrhage bilaterally with

ventriculomegaly and subsequent development of

hydrocephalus

Age 3 months corrected

Background First child

26 weeks GA, 915 g

E coli meningitis + ventriculitis and hydrocephalus

(shunted)

Seizures

Occupational Performance Problems Performance Satisfaction 1. Head control when held upright 2 3 2. Reaching for toys 3 5 3. Taking weight through legs 3 5 4. Increasing weight via oral intake 7 7

PPrrooppoosseedd IInntteerrvveennttiioonn PPllaann

Active Motor

Interventions

Parent

Education

Environmental

Enrichment

Page 10: Handout Early Detection and Early Intervention for Cerebral … · Handout Early Detection and Early Intervention for Cerebral Palsy: Groundbreaking New Tools and Treatments Presenters:

AACPDM WORKSHOP: Early Detection and Early Intervention for Cerebral Palsy: Groundbreaking New Tools and Treatments

Case Study

Diagnosis

Imaging

Age

Background

PPrrooppoosseedd IInntteerrvveennttiioonn PPllaann

Active Motor

Interventions

Parent

Education

Environmental

Enrichment

Page 11: Handout Early Detection and Early Intervention for Cerebral … · Handout Early Detection and Early Intervention for Cerebral Palsy: Groundbreaking New Tools and Treatments Presenters:

AACPDM WORKSHOP: Early Detection and Early Intervention for Cerebral Palsy: Groundbreaking New Tools and Treatments

NOTES:

Page 12: Handout Early Detection and Early Intervention for Cerebral … · Handout Early Detection and Early Intervention for Cerebral Palsy: Groundbreaking New Tools and Treatments Presenters:

DEVELOPMENTAL MEDICINE & CHILD NEUROLOGY REVIEW

Early identification and intervention in cerebral palsy

ANNA HERSKIND1,2,3 | GORM GREISEN3 | JENS BO NIELSEN1

1 Department of Neuroscience and Pharmacology and Department of Nutrition, Exercise and Sports, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen; 2 Helene Elsass Center,Charlottenlund; 3 Department of Neonatology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Correspondence to Anna Herskind at Department of Neuroscience and Pharmacology, Panum Institute, University of Copenhagen, Blegdamsvej 3, 2200 Copenhagen N, Denmark.

E-mail: [email protected]

PUBLICATION DATA

Accepted for publication 4th May 2014.

Published online

ABBREVIATIONS

COPCA Coping with and Caring for

Infants with Special Needs

GMA General Movements Assess-

ment

IMP Infant Motor Profile

IVH Intraventricular haemorrhage

PEDI Pediatric Evaluation of Disabil-

ity Inventory

PVL Periventricular leukomalacia

TIP Traditional infant physiotherapy

Infants with possible cerebral palsy (CP) are commonly assumed to benefit from early diag-

nosis and early intervention, but substantial evidence for this is lacking. There is no consen-

sus in the literature on a definition of ‘early’, but this review focuses on interventions

initiated within the first 6 months after term age. We cover basic neuroscience, arguing for a

beneficial effect of early intervention, and discuss why clinical research to support this con-

vincingly is lacking. We argue that infants offered early intervention in future clinical studies

must be identified carefully, and that the intervention should be focused on infants showing

early signs of CP to determine an effect of treatment. Such signs may be efficiently detected

by a combination of neuroimaging and the General Movements Assessment. We propose a

research agenda directed at large-scale identification of infants showing early signs of CP

and testing of high-intensity, early interventions.

Cerebral palsy (CP) is the most common motor disorderamong children, affecting approximately 2 to 2.5 per 1000live births.1–3 The term CP covers several disorders ofmovement, all attributed to non-progressive disturbancesto the developing fetal or infant brain. The physicalimpairment is often accompanied by disturbances in cogni-tion and perception.4 Among others, genetic predisposi-tions, maternal disease, preterm birth, low birthweight andbirth asphyxia are associated with an increased risk ofCP.5,6 Most often, the pathology of CP in preterm infantscan be ascribed to periventricular leukomalacia (PVL) orperi- or intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH), and in gen-eral, the risk of CP increases as gestational age decreases.6

Some cases of CP in infants born at term are caused bybirth asphyxia or neonatal arterial infarction,7 but often aclear underlying pathology is not found. The incidenceand prevalence of CP has fluctuated over time because ofchanges in prenatal and paediatric care, and advances suchas avoiding kernicterus have contributed to preventing thesubtype of athetoid CP. Improved care has led to anincreasing number of surviving preterm and low birth-weight infants at high risk of CP in Western industrializedcountries.3,8

Severe CP can be predicted with high probability shortlyafter birth by cranial ultrasonography, magnetic resonanceimaging (MRI) and other imaging techniques. This is notthe case for mild to moderate CP. As the child develops,

early warning signs include delay in meeting motor mile-stones, seizures, poor sucking ability, a persistently fistedhand, and decreased rate of head growth.9 However, themajority of cases do not present unequivocal symptomsearly on and in current practice, most children with CPare diagnosed around the age of 1 to 2 years.1,2 A funda-mental question is whether these children would benefitfrom being identified earlier and receiving specific, earlyintervention.

In this review, we summarize the existing knowledgeregarding the significance of environmental stimuli onearly, neuronal development and use this to argue thatearly intervention ought to facilitate functional develop-ment in early childhood. In the literature, ‘early interven-tion’ encompasses approaches initiated before term age,when the infant is a few months old and at approximately1 year of age. A clear consensus on a definition of ‘early’ islacking. There is no unequivocal, scientific basis arguing infavour of a better effect of intervention initiated at, forinstance, 3 months of age as compared with 12 months,and clinical studies documenting an age dependency ofintervention are absent.10 We have decided to focus oninterventions aimed at infant motor development in whichthe infant shows active exploratory motor behaviour thatcan be externally facilitated through intervention. Whilethe lower age limit of ‘early’ intervention in this contextmay be set at term equivalent age, the upper limit is more

© 2014 Mac Keith Press DOI: 10.1111/dmcn.12531 1

Page 13: Handout Early Detection and Early Intervention for Cerebral … · Handout Early Detection and Early Intervention for Cerebral Palsy: Groundbreaking New Tools and Treatments Presenters:

difficult to delineate. We have somewhat arbitrarily limitedthe review to studies in which intervention was initiatedbefore 6 months of age. Methods to identify infants withearly signs of CP are discussed with a focus on the GeneralMovements assessment (GMA) and neuroimaging. Wesubsequently review the existing literature on early inter-vention, pointing out that only a few studies have beenperformed on a selected population of infants with a highprobability of developing CP. This may explain the overalllack of significant, long-term effects of intervention, sincea large number of the infants included in the studies maybe assumed not to have required the intervention. We endup by arguing that intervention should be initiated as earlyas possible and directed specifically towards infants selectedon the basis of an effective neurodevelopmental evaluation.Thus, this review argues for a research agenda combiningbetter identification and specific early intervention.

Postnatal human brain developmentHuman brain development is characterized by a significantextension into postnatal life and lasts much longer than inother mammals, including our closest relatives, chimpan-zee, gorilla, and orangutan. In humans synaptic density inthe prefrontal cortex peaks at 3 years 6 months to10 years of age,11,12 in the auditory cortex at 5 months to3 years 6 months,13 and in the primary visual cortexaround 3 months of age.14 Analysis of gene expression hassupported that synaptic growth and plasticity continues toincrease in humans during at least the first decade.11,15,16

Following an initial increase in the expression of synapticgenes and other molecules involved in synapse formationand plasticity, a decline is seen late in childhood and earlyadulthood, but with a sustained abundance far above thatseen in other species.11,12,16 It seems reasonable to relatethis continued postnatal synapse formation and plasticmoulding of neural circuitries in the brain to the pro-tracted motor and cognitive development in humaninfants, children and young adults as compared with otherspecies. Even basic motor abilities such as gait and handfunction have been shown to develop and mature up tothe age of 14 to 15 years17–19 and most cognitive abilitiescontinue to develop for much longer. This is most likelyto be related to continued maturation of the corticospinaltract throughout childhood and adolescence.20,21 In mon-keys, the corticospinal tract establishes direct synapticcontacts with spinal motor neurons between birth and8 months of age, which coincides with development ofthe ability of fractionated finger movements and precisiongrip.22–24 Human infants develop this ability towards theend of the first year of life, consistent with the generallyprotracted development of the nervous system in humansas compared with monkeys. Physiological observationssuggesting establishment of connections between corti-cospinal fibres and spinal motor neurons before birth inhumans are at variance with this and require independentconfirmation.25

Higher potential for recovery following neural lesions ininfants than adultsIt also seems reasonable to assume that the continueddevelopment of the brain well into adulthood creates afavourable environment for reorganization of internal con-nections and functional networks following lesions,whereas in adults reduced plasticity creates a somewhat lessfavourable environment.26 People who were born blindthus show significant reorganization of their visual areas,which may process tactile and other sensory information,whereas such reorganization is not seen spontaneously inpeople who have become blind as adults.27 It is also a gen-eral observation that surgical ablation of one hemisphere(in order to control epileptic seizures) leaves relatively mildimpairments when performed before the age of 10 to11 years of age.28 This is well in line with original obser-vations on the increasing functional severity of lesions inmonkeys of increasing age, known as Kennard’s princi-ple.29,30 The observation that early brain lesions may causemore severe effects than later lesions31 does not necessarilychallenge the idea that the plastic potential decreases withmaturation. Such observations may as well be explained bythe limited size and immature state of the nervous systemat the time of lesion.

Critical periods and sensitive periodsIt is unclear to what extent this also signifies that thedevelopment of neural circuitries undergoes a critical per-iod, where the maturation of the circuitries and their func-tion in the adult brain depends crucially on the presenceof specific environmental influences at a certain time indevelopment. Since the original demonstrations of a criti-cal period in the development of ocular dominance col-umns in the visual cortex of kittens by Wiesel andHubel32,33 critical periods have been demonstrated in anumber of different species, in different cortical areas, andfor a number of different functions.34 For the motor sys-tem, Martin et al. have demonstrated that the developmentof the corticospinal system is impaired with severe func-tional deficits in adult cats when kittens are preventedfrom using their paw during a 1-week period, 2 to 3 weekspostnatal.35 For obvious reasons it is difficult to determinewhether similar critical periods exist in humans. Significantcontroversy surrounds this issue, but most authors agreethat critical periods may exist for the establishment of bin-ocular vision between 3 to 8 months and for languageacquisition in the first few years of life.34 In these cases itappears crucial to ensure the appropriate sensory stimula-tion very early, similar to what has been found in otherspecies.

What this paper adds• Demonstration of an effect of early intervention requires early identification

of infants with possible CP.

• The term ‘early intervention’ is used in many different ways, which impedescomparison of published studies.

2 Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology 2014

Page 14: Handout Early Detection and Early Intervention for Cerebral … · Handout Early Detection and Early Intervention for Cerebral Palsy: Groundbreaking New Tools and Treatments Presenters:

Considerably less controversy surrounds the existence ofsensitive periods during human development. Sensitiveperiods are extended periods of time where children aremore receptive to environmental stimuli than later in life.Accordingly there is every reason to assume that percep-tual, motor and cognitive functions are more sensitive toenvironmental influences (i.e. training and other forms ofstimulation) during childhood than later in life.36,37 How-ever, we know little of the magnitude and time course ofthis higher sensitivity for individual functions, what deter-mines its variability among children, and how it may beutilized in training and learning. Based on the findingsfrom kittens,35,38 it may be speculated that the periodwhere the corticospinal tract is in the process of refiningits functional connections with the spinal motor neuronsduring development would constitute a sensitive period,where interventions would be especially efficient. In thiscase, the first year of life might be considered a sensitiveperiod for motor development, but we have insufficientinformation to be able to conclude this with any certainty.

Enriched environmentsThis also relates to observations on the significance of anenriched environment during development.39–41 The con-cept of enriched environments was initiated with Hebb’sanecdotal observations in the 1940s of larger behaviouralimprovements in rats he brought home as pets as com-pared with their litter mates kept in the laboratory.42 Inthe 1960s, Rosenzweig et al. developed the concept into atestable scientific theory43 and subsequent work has dem-onstrated the stimulating effect of an enriched environmentduring development in experimental animals on a range ofparameters related to plastic changes in the brain,41 and ameta-analysis recently concluded that interventions involv-ing enriched environments are a promising tool for infantswith or at high risk of CP.44 It is generally accepted thatno single factor is responsible for the stimulating effect ofan enriched environment but that it is the combination ofcomplex inanimate and social stimuli which is important(i.e. larger cages with more litter mates and possibility ofinteraction with toys).

Although controlled experiments are unavailable forobvious reasons, irrational human behaviour has occasion-ally provided evidence of the significance of an enrichedenvironment during human development. The most publi-cized case is probably that of Genie, who was locked alonein a room during her first 13 years and showed severelyarrested motor and cognitive development, including fail-ure to develop any significant language skills, when shewas discovered in 1970.45 Although sad cases like that ofGenie do not tell us anything about the amount ofenriched environment necessary to guarantee normalhuman development, they do illustrate the significance ofadequate stimulation during development. Most likely therelationship between stimulation and development followsthe general law of decreasing returns: if a child is verydeprived, a little stimulation will make a large difference,

whereas if the child is well stimulated it will take a lotmore to make a significant difference. It should also bementioned that reduced environmental stimulation, asimplemented by the Newborn Individualized Developmen-tal Care and Assessment Program in preterm infants in theneonatal period, has been proposed to prevent childhoodattention disorders, however, a recent systematic reviewdid not find evidence of long-term neurodevelopmentaleffects of NIDCAP.46

Passive stimulation is insufficient—learning requiresactive participationSince Donald Hebb put forward his theory of the neuralbasis of learning, popularized as ‘what fires together–wirestogether’, it has been a fundamental idea that learningrequires coordinated activity in neural circuitries.42 From adevelopmental perspective, this also relates to the notionthat ‘successful’ neural circuitries, which produce an ade-quate model of the environment or an adequate behaviour,survive, whereas less successful circuitries are removed.47,48

This pruning of neural circuitries probably explains thegradual decrease in the thickness of the cerebral cortexthroughout late childhood and adolescence.49 Essential tothis idea is that the selection during development is based ona continuous testing of the efficiency of the neuronal circuit-ries’ ability to produce a given sensory feedback when inter-acting with the environment. In other words, theestablishment of valid internal models and representations ofthe external world in the nervous system is based on contin-uous testing of the validity of these models. This is done bymonitoring the success of the models in producing sensoryfeedback corresponding to that expected by the model.50

According to this idea, learning (i.e. alteration or selectionof neural circuitries) happens when the internal model pro-duces a behaviour that has sensory consequences differentfrom what the model expects.50 In this case, the sensoryinformation from the environment acts as an error signalwhich updates and alters the internal model.50 This is similarto the idea that learning only takes place in an action–reac-tion situation, or put differently, when the child activelyexplores the environment or participates actively (takes aninterest) in the training. Therefore, an enriched environ-ment, learning, and training do not involve passive stimula-tion, but rather require that the child plays an active part.

Early identification of infants with signs of cerebral palsyis importantAs previously mentioned, CP is on average diagnosed whenthe child is approximately 1 to 2 years old. This is too latefor early intervention as defined here to be initiated andtherefore, early intervention requires early identification ofinfants that may develop CP. Additionally, the time fromsuspicion is raised and until diagnosis is made can be verystressful for the parents and should be minimized if possi-ble.6 For the time being, techniques that can easily identifyinfants with early signs of CP are lacking. Infants with severebrain lesions are usually detected soon after birth on the

Review 3

Page 15: Handout Early Detection and Early Intervention for Cerebral … · Handout Early Detection and Early Intervention for Cerebral Palsy: Groundbreaking New Tools and Treatments Presenters:

basis of neuroimaging such as ultrasonography and MRI andtherefore they may benefit from intervention instigated veryearly. However, infants with severe lesions may require moreintensive and long-lasting treatment efforts to achieve devel-opmental effects. Age limits differ, but infants born after 28to 30 weeks of gestation are not routinely examined withultrasonography or MRI. This is partly due to the relativelylow sensitivity of the modalities; ultrasonography: 66–79%51

and MRI: 71–88%,52 and partly to restricted time and finan-cial resources. Thus, a brain injury that does not presentclear clinical signs can go undetected for a long period oftime, resulting in an intervention being initiated late. Addi-tional methods for early identification are necessary, and theGeneral Movements assessment may be one such system. Itconsists of an observation of the quality of spontaneousmovement patterns, where abnormal general movementsindicate a high risk of developmental disorders such as CP.General movements are present during the neonatal periodand disappear at around 5 months corrected age. From 8 to9 weeks corrected age, a pattern termed ‘fidgety move-ments’53 is normally present, and absent or abnormal fidgetymovements are associated with a high risk of later CP.54–57

Since not all children with abnormal findings at neuro-logical examination or on neuroimaging go on to developCP58 several authors recommend combining MRI andGMA.59–61 Skiold et al. recently found definitely abnormalgeneral movements to be significantly associated with CPat 30 months corrected age and that moderate-severe whitematter abnormalities on MRI had an even stronger associa-tion with CP than the general movements. When combin-ing the GMA and MRI findings, sensitivity and specificityof 100% was achieved.61 However, as the diagnostic valueof MRI at term may not be much better than consecutiveultrasonography, and since MRI is demanding, routineMRI at term is unlikely to become standard practice. Toour knowledge, studies combining ultrasonography and theGMA have yet to be performed.

Choice of imaging modality aside, a joint method seemsappealing. However, the GMA requires ample training,upkeep of analytic skills and time for video analyses. The clini-cian must use the GMA regularly and considering the rela-tively low number of infants suspected of CP this may bechallenging. One option is to computerize the GMA to iden-tify infants who need a second opinion from a team of clini-cians.62–64 Computerizing the analysis may even allowscreening of infants at risk. As the high specificity and sensitiv-ity of the GMA is deducted from groups of high-risk infants,more research on the validity of the GMA in low-risk popula-tions of infants is needed. Thus, one caveat for the use of theGMA as a screening tool is that it appears to have low predic-tive value in a general population of new-born infants.65

Despite novel methods for identifying infants who maydevelop CP, the diagnosis of CP is still made from clinicalobservations. The commonly accepted definition of CP from2005 by Bax et al.4 reads: ‘Cerebral palsy (CP) describes agroup of disorders of the development of movementand posture, causing activity limitation, that are attributed

to non-progressive disturbances that occurred in thedeveloping fetal or infant brain. The motor disorders ofcerebral palsy are often accompanied by disturbances ofsensation, cognition, communication, perception, and/orbehaviour, and/or by a seizure disorder.’ Finding a largeIVH on neuroimaging or finding absent fidgety movementspredicts the development of CP but does not allow the diag-nosis. Even with perfect prediction of the final outcome of adevelopmental process, the clinical condition at the begin-ning of that process is different from that at the end. Strictlyspeaking, if the condition at the beginning and at the endwere perfectly linked, then intervention could have no effect.

Unconvincing evidence of the efficacy of earlyinterventionBased on our knowledge of neuroplasticity and sensitiveperiods it seems apparent that early intervention ought tobenefit infants with brain damage during development.However, from the vast amount of literature on the subjectit is difficult to determine whether early intervention iseffective or not. Several reasons for this may be proposed.As already mentioned, one is the matter of defining ‘early’.Another problem is that it is difficult to compare studiessince a countless number of diverse ‘early interventions’have been applied. This is a challenge for meta-analyses.Researchers have tried everything from teaching parentshow to handle their preterm infant, improving the parent-infant relationship,66,67 specially educated staff,68 differentphysiotherapeutic approaches69–71 to acupuncture.72 Fur-thermore, the methods of measuring the effects are numer-ous, not all have been validated and some may not beadequate to measure the outcome in question.

Early intervention studies also face the challenge of actu-ally achieving a genuine comparison of the intervention tono treatment, as it is difficult not to offer infants in a controlgroup any treatment. Usually the solution is to providetraining for the control group as well, although less fre-quently than the intervention group. Yet, the training of thecontrol children is likely to mask the effect of the interven-tion. Additionally, it is well known that people may be disap-pointed when allocated to the control group,73 and ifrandomized to the control group some parents will presum-ably attempt to train the child themselves. Finally, the physi-cian responsible for the children in the study may feelcompelled to prescribe intervention for children showingearly signs of CP during the period of intervention. To avoidthis, a cross-over design, in which all participants areincluded in both the intervention and the control group andswitch places halfway, is commonly used.

The effect of early intervention has been investigated in arange of randomized controlled studies, which have beenreviewed in a number of previous reviews.54,74–76 An overallconclusion from these reviews has been that there is no con-vincing evidence to support early intervention. We will onlydiscuss two of the more recent reviews here. In 2005, Blauw-Hospers et al. systematically reviewed 34 studies with a totalof 3255 infants to evaluate the effect of early intervention

4 Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology 2014

Page 16: Handout Early Detection and Early Intervention for Cerebral … · Handout Early Detection and Early Intervention for Cerebral Palsy: Groundbreaking New Tools and Treatments Presenters:

on motor development.10 As a reflection of the problemsmentioned in the previous section, the interventions, out-come measures and the age at initiation of intervention weretoo variable to permit a formal meta-analysis. The authorsdivided the included studies into groups depending on theonset of intervention and evaluated the quality of the studiesaccording to the level of evidence and internal and externalvalidity. Of the 17 studies initiated after dispatch from theneonatal unit, 12 had a high methodological quality. Onlyfour of these showed a beneficial effect on motor develop-ment. Eight of the 12 studies evaluated neurodevelopmentaltreatment, otherwise referred to as the Bobath concept, whichmainly involved passive handling techniques. By and large,these studies found no significant effect on motor develop-ment. In contrast, a generally positive effect was found in theremaining high-quality studies, which evaluated interven-tions that required active participation from the child.10 Ofthese, one had an attrition rate of greater than 25%,77 oneinvestigated children with Down syndrome,78 one comparedconductive education to passive handling79 and the last studyconsidered a physiotherapeutic intervention.71 This study byLekskulchai and Cole is discussed later in this review.

In a recent Cochrane review, Spittle et al.80 selected ahomogenous group of quasi-randomized and randomizedcontrolled trials (RCT) to review the effects of early devel-opmental intervention programmes. The review encom-passed 3133 preterm infants who all started some kind ofintervention within the first 12 months of life, and at leastpart of the intervention took place after discharge. The con-clusion was that early intervention had moderate effects oncognitive development, but only weak effects were found formotor development and the cognitive improvements did notlast into the early school years. Similarly, RCTs not includedin the Spittle et al. review have struggled to provide substan-tial evidence of a positive effect on motor and cognitivedevelopment by early interventions.66,81,82

We find it likely that a key reason for the lack of signifi-cant results in these studies is that only very few haveinvestigated the effect of early intervention in children witha high probability of developing CP. According to a meta-analysis of 25 studies, the average prevalence of CP is14.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 12.5–17) among pre-term infants born at 22 to 27 weeks’ gestational age, 6.2%(CI 4.9–7.8) at 28–31 weeks, 0.7% (CI 0.6–0.9) at 32 to36 weeks, and among infants born at term 0.1% (CI0.093–0.014).83 Thus, infants born preterm have a higherrisk of CP than infants born at term. However, a largenumber of preterm infants will still develop normally.Therefore, when recruiting infants for a trial, relying solelyon preterm birth as a risk factor of CP is somewhat insuffi-cient. The cohort of preterm infants needs to undergo fur-ther selection using techniques such as brain ultrasound,MRI or the GMA in order to identify the infants who arein most need of intervention. If this is not done, majoreffects of early intervention cannot be expected, as a largeproportion of the children included in the studies wouldnot require the intervention and, therefore, would dilute

the treatment effect in those children who needed it. Anearly distinction between high-risk infants may help directthe treatment towards infants who are in definite need ofthe intervention and thereby help ensure stronger evidenceof the effect of the intervention. In other words, a moretargeted intervention could be pursued. However, it is tobe kept in mind that by using targeted intervention thereis a risk of excluding infants who may have needed theintervention and, thus, ‘undertreating’ children who do notfit very specific inclusion criteria.

An attempt at this type of early distinction was made almost30 years ago when 80 preterm infants were divided into ‘nor-mal’, ‘at-risk’ and ‘neurologically impaired’ groups by clinicalneurological examination at 3 months corrected age. Subse-quently, intervention was offered to randomly selected ‘at-risk’ and ‘normal’ infants, while the most severely affectedchildren in the ‘neurologically impaired’ group were alloffered intervention.84 Unfortunately, the authors do notspecify any details of the intervention and it is thereforeunclear why they did not gain significant results. However,the notion of focusing on the children who would benefit themost from the intervention is of interest. Along these lines,we have been able to find only three more recent studies inwhich intervention has been directed specifically towardschildren with a high risk of CP. Lekskulchai et al.71 enrolled111 preterm infants with no congenital abnormalities or seri-ous brain damage. At 40 weeks gestational age the infantswere evaluated using the Test of Infant Motor Performanceand infants with a score less than 66 were randomly assignedto either intervention or control. The intervention consistedof daily home-based activities, such as assisted kicking andweight bearing on forearms, provided by the primary care-giver, who had been trained by a physiotherapist beforehandand each month new tasks were added. There is no informa-tion on the regimen for the control infants. At 4 months cor-rected age the infants in the intervention group showedsignificantly better motor development than those in the con-trol group.71

Weindling et al.85 studied 105 preterm infants withmajor cranial ultrasound abnormalities such as PVL. Allinfants were included around term age and showed no clin-ical signs of motor or cognitive disability. The infants wererandomized to early physiotherapy or to standard treat-ment, which was physiotherapy initiated when a paediatri-cian found it appropriate. Thus, the difference between thegroups reflects the effect of the time of onset of physio-therapy rather than the effect of physiotherapy as such.The physiotherapists used neurodevelopmental therapy(a.m. Bobath) where parents of infants in the interventiongroup were given advice on handling and positioning oftheir child. A little more than half of the infants developedCP. There was no significant difference between thegroups at neither 12 nor 30 months. There may be severalreasons for this, including an insufficient differencebetween the physiotherapy administered for the interven-tion and control groups respectively, the choice of inter-vention (the passive manipulation mainly used is likely to

Review 5

Page 17: Handout Early Detection and Early Intervention for Cerebral … · Handout Early Detection and Early Intervention for Cerebral Palsy: Groundbreaking New Tools and Treatments Presenters:

have little effect10,86,87), and that the study included severalinfants who did not develop CP regardless of intervention.

Hielkema et al.68 and Blauw-Hospers et al.88 comparedan intervention programme, Coping with and Caring forInfants with Special Needs (COPCA), to traditional infantphysiotherapy (TIP,) mostly based on the principles of neu-rodevelopmental treatment. At a corrected age of 3 months,46 infants, who at 10 weeks gestational age had definitelyabnormal general movements, were included and random-ized to either COPCA or TIP. The COPCA intervention(n=21) was home-based and provided twice-weekly from 3to 6 months corrected age by specially trained physical ther-apists. Frequency and location of TIP (n=25) depended on apaediatrician’s advice, the median frequency being once aweek. After the intervention period, 36 infants continuedreceiving physical therapy until 18 months corrected age; 12infants received COPCA, three had TIP as no COPCAcoach was available, and 21 received TIP. All infants wereassessed several times using the Infant Motor Profile (IMP),the Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory (PEDI) andother neurodevelopmental examinations. At 18 months, theinfants who received COPCA had significantly better func-tional PEDI skills compared with the infants who receivedTIP a.m. Bobath. There was no difference between motoroutcomes in the two groups; however, some elements ofCOPCA were associated with a better IMP score. The lackof difference in motor outcome between the interventionand control group is likely to be due to an insufficient differ-ence between the therapies offered to the two groups incombination with a relatively small number of infants.68

Additionally, the authors found extensive heterogeneity inthe intervention strategies applied within the two groups,especially in the TIP group.88

Thus, the evidence available regarding early interventiondirected specifically at children with a high probability ofdeveloping CP is limited. There is clearly a need for addi-tional randomized studies in which early, intensive trainingis offered to a group of infants showing early signs of CP.Recently, a pilot study on the effects of kicking and step-ping exercises in a group of preterm infants with ultraso-nography-confirmed severe IVH or PVL has providedpromising results on motor development.89

Matching neurodevelopmental evaluation and interventionEven if identification of infants with early signs of CP isachieved, the ideal type of early intervention has yet to be

found. However, as mentioned earlier, interventionsrequiring active participation from the infant have shownpromising effects. Furthermore, studies on older childrenwith CP and adults with late onset brain damage may beof relevance.90,91 These studies also argue that trainingmust involve active participation. In addition, interventionmust be of greater intensity and longer duration than whathas been used previously90 and improvement is more likelyif tasks are motivating and practised at home for at least20 minutes a day.91 Thus, we suggest that the early inter-vention should be performed daily in the child’s home and,considering the importance of the parent–infant relation-ship, the parents must be trained to administer the inter-vention. The intervention must stimulate activeparticipation from the child and must, therefore, be bothfun and easy to manage to keep parents and children moti-vated. Ideally, a therapist should be available to supportand ensure the quality of the training. However, this willnot be possible on a large scale because of costs. This leadsus to consider if the vast number of devices available fortelecommunication are useful. Professional guidance andencouragement is often necessary to gain sufficient compli-ance, and online, daily sessions with a physiotherapist maybe a financially viable solution.

In conclusion, although systematic reviews of RCTshave struggled to show lasting benefits of early interven-tion, this evidence is not sufficient to exclude the value ofearly intervention. The main reasons for this are the lackof precision in identifying infants for intervention studiesand insufficient difference between the interventionsoffered to the intervention and control group. Althoughwe realize that early identification of all infants with CP inthe general population will not be possible, we propose aresearch agenda directed at large-scale identification ofinfants with early signs of CP and testing of high-intensity,early interventions in which the infant actively participates.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors thank Maria Willerslev-Olsen and Jakob Lorentzen

for reading and commenting on an early version of the manu-

script. This work was supported by a grant from the Ludvig and

Sara Elsass Foundation.

The authors have stated that they had no interests that could

be perceived as posing a conflict or bias.

REFERENCES

1. Himmelmann K. Chapter 15. Epidemiology of cerebral

palsy. In: Olivier Dulac ML, Harvey BS, editors. Hand-

book of Clinical Neurology. Volume 111. London:

Elsevier, 2013: 163–7.

2. Ashwal S, Russman BS, Blasco PA, et al. Practice

parameter: diagnostic assessment of the child with cere-

bral palsy: report of the Quality Standards Subcommit-

tee of the American Academy of Neurology and the

Practice Committee of the Child Neurology Society.

Neurology 2004; 62: 851–63.

3. Aisen ML, Kerkovich D, Mast J, et al. Cerebral palsy:

clinical care and neurological rehabilitation. Lancet Neu-

rol 2011; 10: 844–52.

4. Bax M, Goldstein M, Rosenbaum P, et al. Proposed def-

inition and classification of cerebral palsy, April 2005.

Dev Med Child Neurol 2005; 47: 571–6.

5. McIntyre S, Taitz D, Keogh J, Goldsmith S, Badawi

N, Blair E. A systematic review of risk factors for

cerebral palsy in children born at term in deve-

loped countries. Dev Med Child Neurol 2013; 55: 499–

508.

6. McIntyre S, Morgan C, Walker K, Novak I. Cerebral

palsy–don’t delay. Dev Disabil Res Rev 2011; 17: 114–

29.

6 Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology 2014

Page 18: Handout Early Detection and Early Intervention for Cerebral … · Handout Early Detection and Early Intervention for Cerebral Palsy: Groundbreaking New Tools and Treatments Presenters:

7. Mercuri E, Cowan F. Cerebral infarction in the new-

born infant: review of the literature and personal experi-

ence. EJPN 1999; 3: 255–63.

8. Odding E, Roebroeck ME, Stam HJ. The epidemiology

of cerebral palsy: incidence, impairments and risk fac-

tors. Disabil Rehabil 2006; 28: 183–91.

9. Murphy N, Such-Neibar T. Cerebral palsy diagnosis

and management: the state of the art. Curr Probl Pediatr

Adolesc Health Care 2003; 33: 146–69.

10. 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.

11. Liu X, Somel M, Tang L, et al. Extension of cortical

synaptic development distinguishes humans from chim-

panzees and macaques. Genome Res 2012; 22: 611–22.

12. Somel M, Liu X, Khaitovich P. Human brain evolution:

transcripts, metabolites and their regulators. Nat Rev

Neurosci 2013; 14: 112–27.

13. Huttenlocher PR, Dabholkar AS. Regional differences in

synaptogenesis in human cerebral cortex. J Comp Neurol

1997; 387: 167–78.

14. Huttenlocher PR, de Courten C, Garey LJ, Van der

Loos H. Synaptogenesis in human visual cortex–

evidence for synapse elimination during normal develop-

ment. Neurosci Lett 1982; 33: 247–52.

15. Lidow MS, Goldman-Rakic PS, Rakic P. Synchronized

overproduction of neurotransmitter receptors in diverse

regions of the primate cerebral cortex. Proc Natl Acad Sci

U S A 1991; 88: 10218–21.

16. Webster MJ, Elashoff M, Weickert CS. Molecular evi-

dence that cortical synaptic growth predominates during

the first decade of life in humans. Int J Dev Neurosci

2011; 29: 225–36.

17. Forssberg H. Ontogeny of human locomotor control. I.

Infant stepping, supported locomotion and transition to

independent locomotion. Exp Brain Res 1985; 57: 480–

93.

18. Forssberg H, Kinoshita H, Eliasson AC, Johansson RS,

Westling G, Gordon AM. Development of human preci-

sion grip. II. Anticipatory control of isometric forces tar-

geted for object’s weight. Exp Brain Res 1992; 90: 393–8.

19. Petersen TH, Kliim-Due M, Farmer SF, Nielsen JB.

Childhood development of common drive to a human

leg muscle during ankle dorsiflexion and gait. J Physiol

2010; 588: 4387–400.

20. Paus T, Zijdenbos A, Worsley K, et al. Structural matu-

ration of neural pathways in children and adolescents: in

vivo study. Science 1999; 283: 1908–11.

21. Muller K, Kass-Iliyya F, Reitz M. Ontogeny of ipsilat-

eral corticospinal projections: a developmental study

with transcranial magnetic stimulation. Ann Neurol 1997;

42: 705–11.

22. Armand J, Olivier E, Edgley SA, Lemon RN. Postnatal

development of corticospinal projections from motor

cortex to the cervical enlargement in the macaque mon-

key. J Neurosci 1997; 17: 251–66.

23. Olivier E, Edgley SA, Armand J, Lemon RN. An elec-

trophysiological study of the postnatal development of

the corticospinal system in the macaque monkey. J Neu-

rosci 1997; 17: 267–76.

24. Armand J, Edgley SA, Lemon RN, Olivier E.

Protracted postnatal development of corticospinal

projections from the primary motor cortex to hand

motoneurones in the macaque monkey. Exp Brain Res

1994; 101: 178–82.

25. Eyre JA, Miller S, Clowry GJ, Conway EA, Watts C.

Functional corticospinal projections are established pre-

natally in the human foetus permitting involvement in

the development of spinal motor centres. Brain 2000;

123: 51–64.

26. Ramon Y, Cajal S. Degeneration and Regeneration of

the Nervous System. New York: Hafner, 1928.

27. Sadato N, Pascual-Leone A, Grafman J, et al. Activation

of the primary visual cortex by Braille reading in blind

subjects. Nature 1996; 380: 526–8.

28. Burke MW, Kupers R, Ptito M. Adaptive neuroplastic

responses in early and late hemispherectomized mon-

keys. Neural Plast 2012; 2012: 852423.

29. Kennard MA. Cortical reorganization of motor function

studies on series of monkeys of various ages from

infancy to maturity. Arch Neurol Psychiatry 1942; 48:

227–40.

30. Kennard MA. Age and other factors in motor recovery

from precentral lesions in monkeys. Am J Physiol 1936;

115: 138–46.

31. Anderson V, Jacobs R, Spencer-Smith M, et al. Does

early age at brain insult predict worse outcome? Neuro-

psychological implications. J Pediatr Psychol 2010; 35:

716–27.

32. Wiesel TN, Hubel DH. Effect of visual deprivation on

morphology and physiology of cells in the cats lateral

geniculate body. J Neurophysiol 1963; 26: 978–93.

33. Wiesel TN, Hubel DH. Single-cell responses in striate

cortex of kittens deprived of vision in one eye. J Neuro-

physiol 1963; 26: 1003–17.

34. Hensch TK. Critical period regulation. Annu Rev Neuro-

sci 2004; 27: 549–79.

35. Martin JH, Choy M, Pullman S, Meng Z. Corticospinal

system development depends on motor experience.

J Neurosci 2004; 24: 2122–32.

36. Kral A. Auditory critical periods: a review from system’s

perspective. Neuroscience 2013; 247: 117–33.

37. Steele CJ, Bailey JA, Zatorre RJ, Penhune VB. Early

musical training and white-matter plasticity in the cor-

pus callosum: evidence for a sensitive period. J Neurosci

2013; 33: 1282–90.

38. Martin JH. The corticospinal system: from development

to motor control. Neuroscientist 2005; 11: 161–73.

39. Bengoetxea H, Ortuzar N, Bulnes S, Rico-Barrio I, Laf-

uente JV, Argandona EG. Enriched and deprived sen-

sory experience induces structural changes and rewires

connectivity during the postnatal development of the

brain. Neural Plast 2012; 2012: 305693.

40. Baroncelli L, Braschi C, Spolidoro M, Begenisic T, Sale

A, Maffei L. Nurturing brain plasticity: impact of envi-

ronmental enrichment. Cell Death Differ 2010; 17: 1092–

103.

41. van Praag H, Kempermann G, Gage FH. Neural conse-

quences of environmental enrichment. Nat Rev Neurosci

2000; 1: 191–8.

42. Hebb DO. The effects of early experience on problem-

solving at maturity. Am Psychol 1947; 2: 306–7.

43. Rosenzweig MR. Environmental complexity, cerebral

change, and behavior. Am Psychol 1966; 21: 321–32.

44. Morgan C, Novak I, Badawi N. Enriched environments

and motor outcomes in cerebral palsy: systematic review

and meta-analysis. Pediatrics 2013; 132: e735–46.

45. Rymer R. Genie: a Scientific Tragedy. New York: Har-

per Perennial, 1993.

46. Ohlsson A, Jacobs SE. NIDCAP: a systematic review

and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. Pedia-

trics 2013; 131: e881–93.

47. Hadders-Algra M. The neuronal group selection theory:

a framework to explain variation in normal motor devel-

opment. Dev Med Child Neurol 2000; 42: 566–72.

48. Hadders-Algra M. The neuronal group selection theory:

promising principles for understanding and treating

developmental motor disorders. Dev Med Child Neurol

2000; 42: 707–15.

49. Jernigan TL, Baare WF, Stiles J, Madsen KS. Postnatal

brain development: structural imaging of dynamic neu-

rodevelopmental processes. Prog Brain Res 2011; 189:

77–92.

50. Wolpert DM, Diedrichsen J, Flanagan JR. Principles

of sensorimotor learning. Nat Rev Neurosci 2011; 12:

739–51.

51. de Vries LS, van Haastert I-LC, Rademaker KJ, Koop-

man C, Groenendaal F. Ultrasound abnormalities

preceding cerebral palsy in high-risk preterm infants.

J Pediatr 2004; 144: 815–20.

52. Mirmiran M, Barnes PD, Keller K, et al. Neonatal brain

magnetic resonance imaging before discharge is better

than serial cranial ultrasound in predicting cerebral palsy

in very low birth weight preterm infants. Pediatrics 2004;

114: 992–8.

53. Einspieler C, Prechtl H, Bos AF, Ferrari F, Cioni G.

Prechtl’s Method on the Qualitative Assessment of Gen-

eral Movements in Preterm, Term and Young Infants.

London: Mac Keith Press, 2004.

54. Darsaklis V, Snider LM, Majnemer A, Mazer B. Predic-

tive validity of Prechtl’s Method on the Qualitative

Assessment of General Movements: a systematic review

of the evidence. Dev Med Child Neurol 2011; 53: 896–

906.

55. Burger M, Louw QA. The predictive validity of general

movements – a systematic review. Eur J Paediatr Neurol

2009; 13: 408–20.

56. Bosanquet M, Copeland L, Ware R, Boyd R. A system-

atic review of tests to predict cerebral palsy in young

children. Dev Med Child Neurol 2013; 55: 418–26.

57. Hamer EG, Bos AF, Hadders-Algra M. Assessment of

specific characteristics of abnormal general movements:

does it enhance the prediction of cerebral palsy? Dev

Med Child Neurol 2011; 53: 751–6.

58. Korzeniewski SJ, Birbeck G, DeLano MC, Potchen MJ,

Paneth N. A systematic review of neuroimaging for

cerebral palsy. J Child Neurol 2008; 23: 216–27.

59. Constantinou JC, Adamson-Macedo EN, Mirmiran M,

Fleisher BE. Movement, imaging and neurobehavioral

assessment as predictors of cerebral palsy in preterm

infants. J Perinatol 2007; 27: 225–9.

60. Spittle AJ, Boyd RN, Inder TE, Doyle LW. Predicting

motor development in very preterm infants at 12

months’ corrected age: the role of qualitative magnetic

resonance imaging and general movements assessments.

Pediatrics 2009; 123: 512–7.

Review 7

Page 19: Handout Early Detection and Early Intervention for Cerebral … · Handout Early Detection and Early Intervention for Cerebral Palsy: Groundbreaking New Tools and Treatments Presenters:

61. Skiold B, Eriksson C, Eliasson AC, Aden U, Vollmer B.

General movements and magnetic resonance imaging in

the prediction of neuromotor outcome in children born

extremely preterm. Early Hum Dev 2013; 89: 467–72.

62. Adde L, Helbostad JL, Jensenius AR, Taraldsen G,

Grunewaldt KH, Stoen R. Early prediction of cerebral

palsy by computer-based video analysis of general move-

ments: a feasibility study. Dev Med Child Neurol 2010;

52: 773–8.

63. Karch D, Kang KS, Wochner K, et al. Kinematic assess-

ment of stereotypy in spontaneous movements in infants.

Gait Posture 2012; 36: 307–11.

64. Karch D, Wochner K, Kim K, et al. Quantitative score for

the evaluation of kinematic recordings in neuropediatric

diagnostics. Detection of complex patterns in spontaneous

limb movements.Methods Inf Med 2010; 49: 526–30.

65. Bouwstra H, Dijk-Stigter GR, Grooten HM, et al. Pre-

dictive value of definitely abnormal general movements

in the general population. Dev Med Child Neurol 2010;

52: 456–61.

66. Spencer-Smith MM, Spittle AJ, Doyle LW, et al. Long-

term benefits of home-based preventive care for preterm

infants: a randomized trial. Pediatrics 2012; 130: 1094–101.

67. Johnson S, Whitelaw A, Glazebrook C, et al. Random-

ized trial of a parenting intervention for very preterm

infants: outcome at 2 years. J Pediatr 2009; 155: 488–94.

68. Hielkema T, Blauw-Hospers CH, Dirks T, Drijver-

Messelink M, Bos AF, Hadders-Algra M. Does physio-

therapeutic intervention affect motor outcome in high-

risk infants? An approach combining a randomized con-

trolled trial and process evaluation. Dev Med Child Neu-

rol 2011; 53: e8–15.

69. Koldewijn K, Wolf MJ, van Wassenaer A, et al. The

Infant Behavioral Assessment and Intervention Program

for very low birth weight infants at 6 months corrected

age. J Pediatr 2009; 154: 33–8.

70. Ustad T, Sorsdahl AB, Ljunggren AE. Effects of inten-

sive physiotherapy in infants newly diagnosed with

cerebral palsy. Pediatr Phys Ther 2009; 21: 140–8; discus-

sion 9.

71. Lekskulchai R, Cole J. Effect of a developmental pro-

gram on motor performance in infants born preterm.

Aust J Physiother 2001; 47: 169–76.

72. Duncan B, Shen K, Zou LP, et al. Evaluating intense

rehabilitative therapies with and without acupuncture for

children with cerebral palsy: a randomized controlled

trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2012; 93: 808–15.

73. Lindstrom D, Sundberg-Petersson I, Adami J, Tonnesen

H. Disappointment and drop-out rate after being allo-

cated to control group in a smoking cessation trial.

Contemp Clin Trials 2010; 31: 22–6.

74. Majnemer A. Benefits of early intervention for children

with developmental disabilities. Semin Pediatr Neurol

1998; 5: 62–9.

75. Shonkoff JP, Hauser-Cram P. Early intervention for dis-

abled infants and their families: a quantitative analysis.

Pediatrics 1987; 80: 650–8.

76. Turnbull JD. Early intervention for children with or at

risk of cerebral palsy. Am J Dis Child 1993; 147: 54–9.

77. Barrera ME, Cunningham CE, Rosenbaum PL. Low

birth weight and home intervention strategies: preterm

infants. J Dev Behav Pediatr 1986; 7: 361–6.

78. Ulrich DA, Ulrich BD, Angulo-Kinzler RM, Yun J.

Treadmill training of infants with Down syndrome: evi-

dence-based developmental outcomes. Pediatrics 2001;

108: E84.

79. Reddihough DS, King J, Coleman G, Catanese T. Effi-

cacy of programmes based on Conductive Education for

young children with cerebral palsy. Dev Med Child Neu-

rol 1998; 40: 763–70.

80. Spittle A, Orton J, Anderson P, Boyd R, Doyle LW.

Early developmental intervention programmes post-hos-

pital discharge to prevent motor and cognitive impair-

ments in preterm infants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev

2012; 12: CD005495.

81. Badr LK, Garg M, Kamath M. Intervention for infants

with brain injury: results of a randomized controlled

study. Infant Behav Dev 2006; 29: 80–90.

82. Piper MC, Kunos VI, Willis DM, Mazer BL, Ramsay

M, Silver KM. Early physical therapy effects on the

high-risk infant: a randomized controlled trial. Pediatrics

1986; 78: 216–24.

83. Himpens E, Van den Broeck C, Oostra A, Calders P,

Vanhaesebrouck P. Prevalence, type, distribution, and

severity of cerebral palsy in relation to gestational age: a

meta-analytic review. Dev Med Child Neurol 2008; 50:

334–40.

84. Goodman M, Rothberg AD, Houston-McMillan JE,

Cooper PA, Cartwright JD, van der Velde MA. Effect of

early neurodevelopmental therapy in normal and at-risk

survivors of neonatal intensive care. Lancet 1985; 2:

1327–30.

85. Weindling AM, Hallam P, Gregg J, Klenka H, Rosen-

bloom L, Hutton JL. A randomized controlled trial of

early physiotherapy for high-risk infants. Acta Paediatr

1996; 85: 1107–11.

86. Katalinic OM, Harvey LA, Herbert RD, Moseley AM,

Lannin NA, Schurr K. Stretch for the treatment and

prevention of contractures. Cochrane Database Syst Rev

2010; 9: CD007455.

87. Brown GT, Burns SA. The efficacy of neurodevelop-

mental treatments in children: a systematic review. Br J

Occup Ther 2001; 64: 235–44.

88. Blauw-Hospers CH, Dirks T, Hulshof LJ, Bos AF,

Hadders-Algra M. Pediatric physical therapy in infancy:

from nightmare to dream? A two-arm randomized trial.

Phys Ther 2011; 91: 1323–38.

89. Campbell SK, Gaebler-Spira D, Zawacki L, et al.

Effects on motor development of kicking and stepping

exercise in preterm infants with periventricular brain

injury: a pilot study. J Pediatr Rehabil Med 2012; 5:

15–27.

90. Damiano DL. Activity, activity, activity: rethinking our

physical therapy approach to cerebral palsy. Phys Ther

2006; 86: 1534–40.

91. Dobkin BH. Strategies for stroke rehabilitation. Lancet

Neurol 2004; 3: 528–36.

8 Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology 2014

Page 20: Handout Early Detection and Early Intervention for Cerebral … · Handout Early Detection and Early Intervention for Cerebral Palsy: Groundbreaking New Tools and Treatments Presenters:

CEREBRAL PALSY—DON’T DELAY

Sarah McIntyre,1,2,3* Cathy Morgan,1,3 Karen Walker,2,4 and Iona Novak1,3

1Cerebral Palsy Alliance, Research Institute, New South Wales, Australia

2The University of Sydney, School of Paediatrics and Child Health, New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

3The University of Notre Dame, School of Medicine, New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

4Grace Center for Newborn Care, The Children’s Hospital at Westmead, New South Wales, Australia

Cerebral palsy (CP) is the most severe physical disability within thespectrum of developmental delay. CP is an umbrella term describing agroup of motor disorders, accompanied by many associated impairments.The disability is a result of injuries to the developing brain occurring anytime from the first trimester of pregnancy through to early childhood.However, for the great majority, their full etiological causal pathwayremains unclear. It is important to discriminate as early as possiblebetween: (a) mild or nonspecific motor delay, (b) developmental coordi-nation disorder, (c) syndromes, (d) metabolic and progressive conditions,and (e) CP with its various motor types and distributions. The most prom-ising predictive tool for CP is the general movements assessment, whichassesses the quality of spontaneous movements of infants in the first 4months of life. We propose a change in diagnostic practice. We recom-mend a shift away from referral for intervention following a formal (mostoften late) description of CP, to one of referral for interventionwhich occurs immediately once an infant is considered “at risk” of CP.VC 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Dev Disabil Res Rev 2011;17:114–129.

Key words: cerebral palsy; early diagnosis; general movements;

perinatal risk factors; neonatal risk factors; brain injury

INTRODUCTION

Global developmental delay is an umbrella term thatdescribes two or more delays in the area of speechand language, social and emotional, cognitive and

motor development. Children with cerebral palsy (CP) oftenfall under the umbrella of global developmental delay, but CPcannot be considered “delay,” as children do not “grow outof it.” Health professionals need to understand what clinicalfeatures distinguish CP from other motor disorders, so themost effective interventions can be commenced earlier. TheAmerican Academy of Pediatrics have developed a policy forthe surveillance and screening of developmental disorders(Council on Children with disabilities et al., 2006), howeverthis paper focusses specifically on CP. The objectives of thisreview are fivefold:

1. Describe the nature of CP and what makes it different to

other motor or learning disorders.

2. Outline the prevalence of CP.

3. Determine who is at high risk of CP, what are the predictors

and early signs?

4. Identify tools that help clinicians to accurately predict CP.

5. Present an evidence based algorithmic approach to recogniz-

ing CP and developing intervention plans.

In the early months of life, global developmental delayand CP present similarly, if delayed, acquisition of develop-mental milestones is the only comparator. It is the movementdisorders (e.g., spasticity and dystonia), the level of functionalimpairment, and the associated impairments that set CP apartfrom other milder motor disorders or learning disorders suchas developmental coordination disorder (DCD). DCD is lesssevere and 25 times more common than CP affecting �5–6%the population and current practice is not to diagnose beforethe age of 5. As a result, the diagnosis of CP is often delayedwhile the possibility of DCD is explored.

DCD is primarily a learning problem where childrencan achieve normal movement patterns and skills but haveproblems with learning and planning the movements. CPconversely is a physical disorder, where children are not ableto achieve the normal movement patterns and the primaryproblem is motoric not learning, although deficits in learningmay compound the motor problem.

DCD is used to refer to children who fulfill a certaincriteria; poor motor performance which significantly interfereswith activities of daily living which are not explained by anymedical, neurological, or psychosocial condition. Thus a childwith CP whose motor disability is neurological cannot have adiagnosis of DCD [Blank et al., 2011]. The physical disabilityof CP is life-long whilst DCD is more apparent in the win-dow where the child is learning key motor skills for example,catching a ball, dressing independently, and handwriting.

WHAT IS CEREBRAL PALSY?CP is an umbrella term which “describes a group of dis-

orders of the development of movement and posture, causingactivity limitations, which are attributed to nonprogressive dis-turbances that occurred in the developing fetal or infant brain.

*Correspondence to: Sarah McIntyre, Cerebral Palsy Alliance, The University of

Sydney, The University of Notre Dame, Australia. E-mail: [email protected] 3 September 2012; accepted 5 October 2012View this article online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com)DOI: 10.1002/ddrr.1106

DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIESRESEARCH REVIEWS 17:114–129 (2011)

' 2013Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Page 21: Handout Early Detection and Early Intervention for Cerebral … · Handout Early Detection and Early Intervention for Cerebral Palsy: Groundbreaking New Tools and Treatments Presenters:

The motor disorders of CP are oftenaccompanied by disturbances of sensa-tion, cognition, communication,perception, and/or behavior, and/or bya seizure disorder” [Bax et al., 2005].This most recent definition acknowl-edges the complexity of the conditionand the impact of the associatedimpairments.

What are the Fundamental FactsWe Know About Cerebral Palsy?

Classification of cerebral palsy guides inter-vention decision making

CP is a heterogeneous condition,and to elucidate prognosis and guideselection of the most appropriate inter-ventions (e.g., constraint inducedmovement therapy for hemiplegia andselective dorsal rhizotomy for diplegia)three major classifications are applied;motor-type, topography, and function.Clinicians often remark that a child mayhave two or three different descriptionsof their CP within one medical file, evi-dencing the poor reliability of thesetraditional classification systems. Tables1 and 2 outline the traditional motortypes and topographies of CP and theproportions of a CP population witheach type. In this paper, we refer to theAustralian Cerebral Palsy Register(ACPR) when reporting rates and forinternational comparisons the SwedishRegister and a study by Reid et al.[2011a] where registers throughout theworld are compared.

To solve the problem of low inter-rater (and sometimes intra-rater) reliability

when identifying topographical subtype,the Surveillance of Cerebral Palsy Europe[SCPE, 2000] has recommended that tra-ditional topographies be combined intotwo easily definable topographies: Unilat-eral (one side of the body), Bilateral (bothsides of the body). The ACPR insteadapplies a limb by limb coding using theAustralian Spasticity Assessment Scale(ASAS) [Love, 2007]. The ASAS scoresthe muscles’ response to rapid passivemovement without the subjectivity andwording ambiguities of the modified Tar-dieu and Ashworth scales [Mutlu et al.,2008]. Nonspastic motor types are alsocoded, resulting in a “stick figure dia-gram” of motor impairment, whichprovides an objective picture of the CP.Figure 1 presents the CP descriptionform. The descriptive form is also clini-cally useful for treatment decision-making, such as pharmacological options

and contracture management. The ASASis currently undergoing further reliabilitystudies, but it is freely available foruse along with the description of CPform: http://www.kemh.health.wa.gov.au/services/register_developmental_anomalies/documents/CP%20Description%20Form%20-%20WARDA%20website.pdf.

The gold standard tool for reliablydescribing motor function in CP is thegross motor function classification sys-tem (GMFCS) [Palisano et al., 1997].GMFCS provides a common languagethat conjures up a “picture” of a childwith CP. GMFCS is a five level classifi-cation system of gross motor functionin people with CP. The classification isbased on the person’s ability to self ini-tiate movement with a focus on sitting,transferring, and mobilizing [Palisanoet al., 1997]. Different classificationdescriptions exist at different agegroups. Table 3 summarizes the systemfor 2–4-year olds, to coincide with themost common time of recognition andthe proportion in a CP population witheach level of GMFCS.

It should be noted that whilst theGMFCS classification can be applied toinfants, about 40% change classificationlevels by age 2. After 2 years, the classifi-cation system is stable and thus GMFCSreassessment is recommended after age 2[Gorter et al., 2008]. This is clinicallyand diagnostically very important,because parents are anxious to learn earlyabout the severity of their child’s condi-tion for future planning but in reality themost accurate description of function andseverity can only be given at 2 years.

The presence of associated impairments andfunctional limitations affects the child’soutcome

For many children with CP, it isnot just a physical disability. Whenseeking to prognosticate the severity of

Table 1. Classification by Motor Type

ACPRa 1Reid, 2011a

Spasticty: Overactive muscles that display a velocity-dependentresistance to stretch. Spasticity can cause secondaryimpairments such as loss of muscle length, jointdislocation and pain.

85 – 91%

Dyskinesia: Dyskinesia is either athetosis or dystonia. Athetoid CP ishypotonic with hyperkinesia characterized by involun-tary writhing-stormy movement and canco-occur with chorea. In contrast, dystonic CP ishypokinetic, involving involuntary, abnormal twistingpostures or repetitive movements with hypertonia.Tone is typically fluctuating.

4 – 7%

Ataxia: Ataxia results in tremors with a shaky quality. AtaxicCP involves a loss of muscular coordination wheremovements have abnormal force, rhythm, and accuracy.

4 – 6%

Hypotonia: Pure, generalized hypotonia (decreased muscle tone) is theleast common CP motor-type. Some argue that purehypotonia should not even be considered a cerebral palsysub-type.

2%

aAustralian Cerebral Palsy Register.

Table 2. Classification by Topography

ACPRa

Hemiplegia: Hemiplegia/monoplegia is the involvement of one side of thebody. The upper limb is usually more affected than thelower limb. Strong early hand preference or hand disregardis sometimes the first sign of a problem.

38%

Diplegia: Diplegia is where both the legs are affected and are moreaffected than the upper limbs.

36%

Quadriplegia(Tetraplegia)

Quadriplegia refers to the presence of spasticity in all fourlimbs; where the affect on the arms is equal or more thanthe legs. Trunk and oro-facial involvement is also to beexpected. In rare cases, one limb is spared and this isreferred to as triplegia.

26%

aAustralian Cerebral Palsy Register.

115DEV DISABIL RES REV � CEREBRAL PALSY—DON’T DELAY � MCINTYRE ET AL

Page 22: Handout Early Detection and Early Intervention for Cerebral … · Handout Early Detection and Early Intervention for Cerebral Palsy: Groundbreaking New Tools and Treatments Presenters:

CP and determine intervention plans,assessment of associated impairmentsmust also occur. The likelihood and se-verity of associated impairments increasewith the severity of motor impairment[Himmelmann et al., 2006; Oddinget al., 2006]. Some have reported thatassociated impairments impact more onfunction and quality of life than themotor impairment [Himmelmann andUvebrant, 2011]. A meta-analysis of CPregisters calculated the overall rates ofassociated impairments and functionallimitations in the CP population to be:three in four are in pain; one in twohave an intellectual disability; one inthree cannot walk; one in three have ahip displacement; one in four cannottalk; one in four have epilepsy; one infour have a behavior disorder; one infour have bladder control problems; onein five have a sleep disorder; one in fivedribble; 1 in 10 are blind; 1 in 15 aretube fed; and 1 in 25 are deaf [Novaket al., in press]. Many will have a num-ber of these impairments, and thepresence of these impairments compli-cates therapy, decreases health status andquality of life for the individual andtheir family, and increases costs for thefamily and to society. The associatedimpairments of CP will now be dis-cussed briefly.Epilepsy. Epilepsy can potentiallyseverely limit the quality of life for theperson with CP and their family, andadults with CP and epilepsy are less likelyto find employment [Michelsen et al.,2005]. Epilepsy occurs in 30% of individ-uals with CP [Arnaud et al., 2008;ACPR Group, 2009]. In 2% of individu-als with CP, their epilepsy will beresolved by the time they turn 5 years ofage [ACPR Group, 2009]. For thosewhose seizures are not resolved, epilepsyis a lifelong condition. Rates of epilepsyare higher in those with: spasticity born

at term (48%) compared with preterm(28%); bilateral CP (34–87%) comparedwith unilateral (23%); and those withintellectual impairment (61%) comparedwith no intellectual impairment (19%)[Carlsson et al., 2003; Wichers et al.,2005; Himmelmann et al., 2006].Intellectual impairment. Intellectualimpairment can be defined by low gen-eral intellectual functioning as measuredby IQ scores, in combination with diffi-culties with adaptive behavior, allmanifesting before the age of 18. Practi-cally, this means that people with anintellectual impairment have memorydeficits, difficulty reasoning, learningnew skills, attending and organizing in-formation. 50% of individuals with CPhave an intellectual impairment andbetween 20 and 30% [Jarvis et al., 2005;McManus et al., 2006] have a severe in-tellectual impairment. Formal assessmentof intellect is essential (but at times diffi-cult) for an individual with CP.Communication. Communication dis-ability can have a major impact on theindividual with CP and their family.Impairment in this domain can impacton both understanding of language andexpression. For individuals who havesevere communication impairment,social isolation and poor self-esteem canresult. Between 20 and 30% of peoplewith CP are nonverbal which meansthat systems to support other forms ofcommunication are required [Arnaudet al., 2008; ACPR Group, 2009;Andersen et al., 2010; Parkes et al.,2010]. They are more likely to be non-verbal if they are non-ambulatory(GMFCS IV-V, 57%) compared tothose who are able to walk (GMFCS I-III, 4%) [Shevell et al., 2009]. Augment-ative and alternative communication(AAC) systems, which can range fromlow/light technology systems such assigning or use of alphabet charts to high

technology systems such as speechgenerating devices, may be used tocommunicate. It is a fundamentalhuman right to have the opportunity tocommunicate; however, high technol-ogy AAC systems are expensive,requiring wait listing and for some indi-viduals will mean that they are unableto access systems that would supportthem to communicate.Vision. Vision impairments can rangefrom mild requiring glasses, to func-tionally blind. About 5–12% ofindividuals with CP have a severeimpairment, or are functionally blind[McManus et al., 2006; ACPR Group,2009]. Another 30% will have a mild tomoderate vision impairment.Hearing. Hearing impairments can alsorange from a mild impairment to bilat-eral deafness. Bilateral deafness occursin 2% of people with CP while otherhearing impairments occur in a further10% [Surman et al., 2006; ACPRGroup, 2009]. Assessment of vision andhearing in children with CP should bethorough and done early, as it canimpact greatly on their ability to learnand achieve milestones.Other. Other impairments stronglyassociated with CP are hip dislocation(8%), displacement (27–35%) [Hagglundet al., 2005; Soo et al., 2006] and spinedeformities, sleep disorders (23%)[Newman et al., 2006], pain (70%)[Jahnsen et al., 2004; Arnaud et al.,2008], eating (8% tube fed) [Shevellet al., 2009; Sigurdardottir and Vik,2011], excessive drooling (22%) [Parkeset al., 2010], bladder and bowel controlcomplaints (24%) [Roijen et al., 2001],and behavior difficulties (26%) [Parkeset al., 2008]. These less well-understoodimpairments are more likely to occurwith bilateral CP and intellectualimpairment.

CP is the most common physical disabilityin childhood with prevalence unchanged for60 years

The overall prevalence of CP is�0.2% of the population (i.e., 1 in 500)in developed countries. As can be seenby a projected age distribution of onestate in Australia (Fig. 2), even thoughthe injury responsible for CP occurs inthe developing brain, it is a lifelongcondition, with most patients having anormal life expectancy. In reality, CP isnot just a condition of childhood.

The true incidence of CP cannotbe estimated as there are a proportion ofinfants who die in the intrapartum, neo-natal and infant period, who had brainlesions that may or may not have met

Table 3. Classification by Gross Motor Function at 2-4 Years

ACPRa

Level I: Floor sits independently, hands-free. Walks withoutassistive devices.

32%

Level II: Floor sits independently, hands-free with balanceaffected. Walks using an assistive mobility device.

27%

Level III: Floor sits using w-sitting. Walks short distances indoorsusing a hand-held mobility device with assistance.

12%

Level IV: Floor sits when placed, uses hands for balance. Rolls,creeps or crawls for short distances.

14%

Level V: Unable to sit independently. No form of independentmobility.

15%

aProportion in Australia with each level of GMFCS.

116 DEV DISABIL RES REV � CEREBRAL PALSY—DON’T DELAY � MCINTYRE ET AL

Page 23: Handout Early Detection and Early Intervention for Cerebral … · Handout Early Detection and Early Intervention for Cerebral Palsy: Groundbreaking New Tools and Treatments Presenters:

the criteria for CP. It has been suggestedtherefore that the closest rate to inci-dence (for CP) is prevalence of neonatalsurvivors (NNS). Western Australia(WA) is one register that reports in thismanner, and is also one of the longestrunning CP Registers in the world. CPis mandatorily reported in WA, there-fore it is assumed that this register has asclose to a total population cohort as ispossible. WA’s CP rates reported in2006 are 2.78/1,000 NNS increasing to3.9/1,000 when post-neonatal CP istaken into account [Blair and Watson,2006; Watson et al., 2006]. NNS areimportant when rates are reported bygestational age stratum. The lower thegestational age stratum, the more ratesdiffer between NNS and live births. It isparticularly important for those at theyoungest gestational ages. When report-ing rates in the birth years 2005 and2006 for those born between 20 and 27weeks in WA, the rate per 1,000 NNSwas 72 (95% CI 32–110) compared to

live births 51 (95% CI 24–79) [Watson,2012, personal communication]. If neo-natal deaths are not taken into account,live births give a misleading lower rate.In term births (371 weeks), where therate of intrapartum/neonatal death isproportionally much less, the differencebetween NNS 1.7 (95% CI 1.4–2.1)and live births 1.7 (95% CI 1.4–2.0)becomes inconsequential. Despite thisdenominator being the most accurate,for comparison live births are the mostwidely used denominator.

Estimates of prevalence through-out the world vary depending on themethodology of “count,” percentageascertained and variations in selectioncriteria. CP Registers have identifiedrates ranging between 1.4 and 2.77/1,000 live births; surveillance programsrange between 2.1 and 3.6/1,000 livebirths; and cross-sectional surveys rangebetween 1.05 and 4.1/1,000 live births.The two largest data sets, the ACPRand the SCPE both have an overall

birth prevalence of 2/1,000 live births.In developing countries, it is thoughtthat incidence is higher as the publichealth measures that help prevent someCP cases are not freely available indeveloping countries [Blair and Watson,2006]. All data sets across the worldagree there is a higher proportion ofboys diagnosed with CP. Although CPis found across all socio-economicclasses, there is a clear associationbetween low birth weight and lowsocio-economic status, and in normalbirth weight ranges, rates of CP are2.42/1,000 live births for those in thelowest socio-economic groups, com-pared to 1.29/1,000 for the mostaffluent groups.

The overall rate of 2/1,000 hasbeen fairly stable over the last 60 yearsin contrast to the dramatic falls in peri-natal mortality rates. However, therehave been some trends in gestationalage stratum, shown in Figure 3. Ratesin the extremely and very low

Figure 1 Cerebral palsy description form. [Color figure can be viewed in the online issue, which is available at wileyonlinelibrary.com.].

117DEV DISABIL RES REV � CEREBRAL PALSY—DON’T DELAY � MCINTYRE ET AL

Page 24: Handout Early Detection and Early Intervention for Cerebral … · Handout Early Detection and Early Intervention for Cerebral Palsy: Groundbreaking New Tools and Treatments Presenters:

gestational groups rose during the1980s, but are now trending down.Moderately premature infants’ rateshave decreased slightly, while in terminfants the rates are unchanged [Blairet al., 2001; Watson et al., 2006].Because the majority (>73%) of infantsare born over 32 weeks gestational age,the increases and decreases in theextremely and very preterm groupshave made little difference to the over-all rate.

Identification of infants “at-risk of cerebralpalsy” is possible; assessment and screeningshould follow

Since there are no identifiablebiomarkers to accurately predict CP,and clinical risk factors only identifysubpopulations of infants at risk [McA-dams and Juul, 2011], understandingthe term “causal pathways” is impor-tant. CP atiologies are described interms of causal pathways, as there isvery rarely one specific cause of braindamage severe enough to cause CP.Much research has been published thatattempts to discern the risk factors thatlie on one or more causal pathways toCP. What researchers are beginning torealize is how little is known abouthow these risk factors interact on causalpathways. Risk factors can be describedaccording to when they occur or whenthey are identified. The followingexamples have been identified for CP:

� Prior to conception: Previous gynecolog-

ical history of stillbirths/multiple miscar-

riages/neonatal death/premature birth,

family history of CP and other genetic

predispositions, maternal diagnoses, for

example, intellectual impairment, epi-

lepsy and low socioeconomic status.

� Early pregnancy: Infection, birth defects,

multiple births, male gender, and other

genetic predispositions.

� During pregnancy: Maternal disease, for

example, thyroid disorders, pregnancy

complications, for example, preeclampsia

and bleeds in the second and third trimes-

ter, infection and inflammation,

intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR),

placental abnormalities and other precur-

sors to premature birth.

� Around the time of birth and the neonatal

period: An acute intrapartum hypoxic

event, stroke, seizures, hypoglycemia, jaun-

dice, and infection.

� Postnatal period: Infections, accidental

and nonaccidental injuries, stroke both

spontaneous and following surgery.

The rate of CP in neonatal survi-vors varies significantly with level ofrisk at birth. To describe the risk ofdeveloping CP, infants have been sepa-rated into three distinct groups shownin Figure 4: (1) premature infants (30–40% of all CP); (2) term born infantswho shortly after birth have neonatalencephalopathy (NE), a clinicallydefined syndrome of disordered neona-tal brain function (15–20% of all CP);and (3) term born “healthy” infants,who do not require special care in theneonatal period (40–50% of all CP) anddo not appear to have identifiable riskfactors at birth [Badawi et al., 2005;Wu et al., 2006; McIntyre et al., 2011].Premature infants. When consideringwhich babies are at risk of CP, preterminfants commonly come to mind. Therisk of CP increases as gestational age

Figure 2 Estimated number of people living with CP in New South Wales, Australia. [Color figure can be viewed in the online issue, which is avail-able at wileyonlinelibrary.com.]

Figure 3 Gestational age specific rates/1,000 live births in WA, 1980–2006. [Color figure canbe viewed in the online issue, which is available at wileyonlinelibrary.com.]

118 DEV DISABIL RES REV � CEREBRAL PALSY—DON’T DELAY � MCINTYRE ET AL

Page 25: Handout Early Detection and Early Intervention for Cerebral … · Handout Early Detection and Early Intervention for Cerebral Palsy: Groundbreaking New Tools and Treatments Presenters:

decreases, therefore babies born at 36weeks’ gestation are at much lower riskthan those born at 24 weeks. As aresult, rates in premature infants rangebetween 3 and 80/1,000 neonatal survi-vors, reflecting the wide variation inlevels of risk across premature gesta-tions. Premature infants constitute up to40% of infants who develop CP [Kirbyet al., 2011]. So why are prematureinfants at increased risk of CP, andwhich ones are at the highest risk?

The group of preterm infants canbe separated according to gestationalage, with the first subgroup beingextreme prematurity, generally consid-ered less than 28 weeks’ gestation.There is much data in the literaturewhich depicts the outcomes ofextremely premature infants and muchresearch has been conducted in this agegroup [Hoon and Faria, 2010; Reidet al., 2011b]. In the 1970s and 1980s,the frequency of CP in this gestationalage group increased. This was attributedto the increasing survival of extremelypreterm infants and their predilection togerminal matrix hemorrhage and peri-ventricular leukomalacia (PVL) [Stanleyand Watson, 1992; Hagberg et al.,1996]. Evidence from population-basedsamples in Europe, Australia and theUnited States, and analyses from CPRegisters in Australia and Europedescribing trends in prevalence, sub-types, and severity, suggest that this risein frequency of CP in extremely pre-term infants has reached its peak and isnow decreasing [SCPE, 2000; Reidet al., 2011b; Watson, 2012, personalcommunication]. Up to 10% ofextremely preterm infants (variations inreports exist from as low as 3–10%) andup to 5% of infants between 28 and 31weeks gestation will be described ashaving CP [Himpens et al., 2008; Wat-son, 2012, personal communication].Practice point. Mothers whose labor isimminent (and prior to 30 weeks gesta-tion) should now be offered magnesiumsulphate for neuroprotection of theirchild. Meta analyses have shown thatCP can be reduced by 30% for infantsunder 30 weeks gestation [Crowtheret al., 2002].

CP Registers in Europe reportthat this trend for decreasing rates con-tinues into the group of late preterminfants (32–36 weeks’ gestation or1,500–2,499 g) [Andersen et al., 2011].The overall prevalence of CP in thesechildren had dropped from 12.2 per1,000 live births in 1983 to 4.5 per1,000 in 1997. There is conflicting evi-dence in Australia, with the rate being

maintained at between 5 and 7/1,000live births since the early 1980s [Wat-son et al., 2006].

Cerebral lesions in particularPVL, intraventricular hemorrhage(IVH) and intracranial hemorrhage(ICH) grade III and IV, are the mostimportant predictors of CP in very pre-term infants [Tran et al., 2005; Beainoet al., 2010; Himpens et al., 2010]. Inparticular, PVL lesions in the coronaradiata above the posterior limb of theinternal capsule (PLIC) observed in cor-onal sections have been used toaccurately predict motor prognosis[Nanba et al., 2007]. The presence oflesions in this region was highly predic-tive of CP (GMFCS 1 or higher) withsensitivity 100% and specificity 97%. Astudy by Himpens et al. [2010] thatinvestigated the predictive value ofultrasound in brain injury found thatdeep grey matter lesions are a signifi-cant predictor for severe versus mildand moderate CP (OR 5 6), and thatcerebral infarction and hemorrhagegrade IV are strong predictors of unilat-eral spastic CP versus bilateral spasticCP (OR 5 49 and 24, respectively, P< 0.001).

Recently, there has been increas-ing interest in and evidence regardingthe possible effects of intrauterine infec-tion or inflammation early in thepostnatal course, leading to CP. Carloet al. [2011] recently argued that a lateprenatal and/or early neonatal exposureto inflammation may predispose infantsto neurodevelopmental impairment.Wu and Colford [2000] also found thatclinical chorioamnionitis was associatedwith an increase in CP in preterminfants (OR 5 1.9) and term infants(OR 5 4.7).

Transient hypothyroxinaemia,bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD),and necrotizing enterocolitis have alsobeen associated with premature birthand a later description of CP. A recentstudy of 1,047 preterm infants (<28weeks) demonstrated that while allinfants with BPD had a higher risk ofCP those who were mechanically ven-tilated until 36 weeks PMA had at leasta fourfold increased risk of CP [VanMarter et al., 2011]. In addition, pre-term infants who have had surgery torepair a patent ductus arteriosus, orwho required home oxygen have alsobeen identified as at increased risk ofCP [Tran et al., 2005].Practice point. Infants born prematureare at high risk of CP if they haveabnormal cerebral imaging and a morecomplex course. These infants should

receive a general movements (GM)assessment before term equivalent age,and be referred to active surveillanceand early intervention when they leavethe hospital. (see Pathway A Figure 5,to be discussed in the followingsection).

Term infants with and without neonatalencephalopathy

The overall rate of CP for terminfants has been consistently 1.4–1.7/1,000 live births over the past 30 years[Watson et al., 2006; Himmelmannet al., 2010]. Multiple births born atterm are at four times the risk of CPthan singletons born at term. The riskrises again for surviving twins after thedeath of a cotwin [Pharoah, 2006].Risk factors associated with the devel-opment of CP in the term populationalso include congenital malformations,maternal age over 35 years, chorioam-nionitis, preeclampsia, placentalabnormalities, meconium aspirationsyndrome, IUGR, transient metabolicabnormalities, respiratory distress syn-drome, neonatal infections and seizures.[Shankaran, 2008; McIntyre et al.,2012]. One of the most well knownrisk factors for term-born infants is NE.

The second piece of the pie (Fig.4), with a well-recognized predilectionto develop CP are term or near terminfants with NE. For term born infants

with NE, the rate of CP is between

100 and 125/1,000 neonatal survivors,

and those born with severe NE are at

the highest risk of CP of all infants.

Infants with moderate to severe (Sarnat

Stage 2 or 3) NE account for one in

four cases of term CP [Badawi et al.,2005]. Kurinczuk et al. [2010] report

an incidence of NE between 2.5 and

3.5 per 1,000 live births and that �30%

of cases in developed countries are asso-

ciated with evidence of an acute

intrapartum hypoxic event. These

include sentinel birth events that are

also rare but important risk factors for

CP in term infants, such as placental

abruption, cord prolapse, severe intra-

partum hemorrhage, severe shoulder

dystocia, and a tight nuchal cord. It is

estimated that up to 8% of CP is attrib-

utable to an acute intrapartum event

with moderate to severe NE [Blair and

Stanley, 1997].Practice point. Infants with moderate tosevere NE following an acute intrapar-tum event benefit from hypothermia.This intervention prevents CP in oneout of eight of those treated [Jacobs andTarnow-Mordi, 2010]. A number of

119DEV DISABIL RES REV � CEREBRAL PALSY—DON’T DELAY � MCINTYRE ET AL

Page 26: Handout Early Detection and Early Intervention for Cerebral … · Handout Early Detection and Early Intervention for Cerebral Palsy: Groundbreaking New Tools and Treatments Presenters:

adjuvant therapies to help those that donot respond to cooling alone are cur-rently in animal model and phase 1neonatal studies, for example, erythro-poietin, melatonin, xenon, andtopiramate [Gonzalez and Ferriero,2009].

In term infants with moderate tosevere NE, imaging showing basal gan-glia/thalamus injury has a positivepredictive value for CP of 88% [deVries et al., 2011]. In a study of 173term infants with NE, the basal ganglia/thalamus pattern of injury was associ-ated with the most severe motor andcognitive outcomes at 30 months[Miller et al., 2005].Practice point. Term infants with mod-erate to severe NE and a basal ganglia/thalamus injury should be automaticallydescribed as “At high risk,” and gostraight to Pathway B (Figure 5). Theyshould receive a GMs Assessment, bereferred to active surveillance and earlyintervention when they leave thehospital.

The remaining infants with NEthat go on to be described as havingCP have antenatal risks such as IUGR,intrauterine infection, metabolic abnor-malities, syndromes, and birth defects[Badawi et al., 1998; Kurinczuk et al.,2010]. Perinatal arterial stroke occurs in�1.7/100,000 live births. In the new-born period, it can also result in NE,but the majority of these infants presentafter the immediate neonatal periodwith seizures or hemiparesis. Motherswith preeclampsia and infants who haveIUGR are at risk of perinatal arterialstroke [Shankaran, 2008]. Stroke withabnormalities involving the cerebralpeduncle are also highly predictive ofCP PPV 78% [de Vries et al., 2011].Practice point. Infants with a cerebralbirth defect, or stroke with involvement

of the cerebral peduncle should beidentified as “at risk” of CP and shouldjoin Pathway B (Figure 5) at“assessment for CP.”

The risk of developing CP in terminfants who have received routine care atbirth, the third group of infants who goon to develop CP, is �1/1,000 neonatalsurvivors and these infants are at the low-est risk. However, they represent 45% ofall infants with CP and numerically com-prise the largest group (Fig. 4). Why dothese apparently “neurologically normal”children at birth develop CP, and can weidentify them earlier so they can haveaccess to active surveillance and earlyintervention?

From a total population case con-trol study in Western Australia,McIntyre et al. [2011] compared theclinical descriptions of 295 term infantswith CP with 442 term control infantsnone of which required special care.They identified six independent predic-tors of CP in the neonatal period:abnormal fontanelle OR 4.4 (95% CI0.8–23); abnormal tone OR 7.3 (95%CI 2–26.8); birth defects identifiable inthe newborn period OR 5.2 (95% CI2.4–10); ventilatory assistance restrictedto the labor room only OR 2.9 (95%CI 2.2–12); abnormal consciousnessreferred to irritability and lethargy, butnone were comatosed OR 3.7 (95% CI2–7); and in the small group withabnormal temperature regulation tem-perature was down or fluctuating, nothigh OR 4.1 (95% CI 1.2–14). A num-ber of these predictors are reminiscentof criteria for mild NE, and the pres-ence of two or more of these factorsyielded a high specificity (99%), butlow sensitivity (14%) for CP. This isnot surprising considering the unknownetiology of this group of infants. Of thislow risk group who had CP, 58% did

not have any of these neonatal factors,yet 60% of these infants had moderateto severe CP.

This is not the first time a findinglike this has been reported. TheNational Collaborative Perinatal Projectreported that most children with CPdid not derive from groups at high risk(low Apgar scores, or the presence ofneonatal signs). About 43% were exam-ined and classified as “neurologicallynormal” in the neonatal period andconcluded that a large proportion ofCP cases remain unexplained [Nelsonand Ellenberg, 1986; Ellenberg andNelson, 1988]. Earlier still, in 1970,Eva Alberman attempted to modelwhat were at that time the three mostimportant risks around birth: (1) parity>4; (2) abnormal method of delivery—breech, face or shoulder delivery, inter-nal version, or delivery by an untrainedperson; and (3) neonatal illness in the1st week of life—convulsions, cyanoticattacks, cerebral signs, hypothermia,jaundice, Rh incompatibility, or seriousillness. Infants were at the highest riskof disability when all three of these riskswere apparent. They were only a smallgroup (0.1% of total births), but moreimportantly only 0.2% of those with adisability. When any combination ofthese three risks were used, 13.2% of alllive births were classified as at risk, andthis identified 26.3% of all those with adisability. A striking finding was that74% of all those with CP, severe mentalhandicap, hearing, and sight impair-ments could not be identified using thismodel.

Very little has changed for thoseborn at term without any noticeable signsduring the neonatal period since the firststudies of these cohorts in the 1950s. Forthese infants, failure to reach majormotor milestones, such as rolling, sittingor standing, have often been the catalystfor the commencement of developmen-tal assessments and interventions. Giventhat the window for milestone attain-ment in typically developing children isquite broad [WHO Multicenter GrowthReference Study Group, 2006], this usu-ally leads to a “wait and see” approachwhere infants receive no interventionduring their period of rapid neural devel-opment. In view of the fact that everysecond child with CP will be born atterm and requires no special care in theneonatal period, it is imperative thatfrontline health professionals such aspediatricians, general practitioners andallied health practitioners have a bestpractice pathway to follow when a parent

Figure 4 Rate of CP in NeoNatal Survivors. [Color figure can be viewed in the online issue,which is available at wileyonlinelibrary.com.]

120 DEV DISABIL RES REV � CEREBRAL PALSY—DON’T DELAY � MCINTYRE ET AL

Page 27: Handout Early Detection and Early Intervention for Cerebral … · Handout Early Detection and Early Intervention for Cerebral Palsy: Groundbreaking New Tools and Treatments Presenters:

presents with a child who falls into thiscategory.Practice point. When parents bringtheir term born child (3 months to 3years of age) that did not require specialcare when born to a health professionalwith concerns regarding motor devel-opment or abnormal posturing theyshould go straight to Pathway B at“screen for CP.” We propose that atiered approach as developed by Rose-nbaum et al. [2009] should be adopted.They recommend using the ages andstages questionnaire 1 three extra ques-

tions for parents. Consideration shouldalso be given to risk factors duringpregnancy and signs of mild NE in theneonatal period. When an abnormalresult is derived, Pathway B (Figure 5)should be followed to “assessment forCP” through standardized motorassessments.

The description of cerebral palsy is tradition-ally given late but can be given earlier

This review is timely as “it isnow universally accepted that the ear-liest possible diagnosis and treatment (of

CP) are essential to prevent, or at least

minimize, the handicapping effects of a

disability and to make the most of the

assets a child possesses” [Alberman and

Goldstein, 1970]. Yet, paradoxically, 40

years later families are not automatically

receiving early intervention while they

“wait and see” whether their child will

“catch up” from simply a slower motor

developmental trajectory or if their

child actually has CP or DCD or an in-

tellectual impairment with associated

motor difficulties.

Figure 5 Recommended assessment for identification of infants at risk of CP.

121DEV DISABIL RES REV � CEREBRAL PALSY—DON’T DELAY � MCINTYRE ET AL

Page 28: Handout Early Detection and Early Intervention for Cerebral … · Handout Early Detection and Early Intervention for Cerebral Palsy: Groundbreaking New Tools and Treatments Presenters:

CP registers indicate the averageage for a description of CP to be givenis 19 months, but the range is wide.For those with severe motor impair-ment the description of CP can begiven as early as 1 week but may takeup to 3 years, and less surprisingly forthose with mild or moderate motorimpairment the description of CP isgiven anywhere between 1 week and 5years of age [Watson et al., 2006]. Theburgeoning body of recent neuroplas-ticity literature suggests that intensive,repetitive, task-specific intervention forCP ought to commence very early

while the brain is most plastic (i.e., inthe first 2 years of life), which is almostnever the case when the family is takingpart in “wait and see” monitoring priorto description.

Good evidence shows that earlierdetection of CP is both possible andaccurate and, more importantly, diag-nostic-specific early intervention istherefore possible. Rather than waitingfor a formal description of CP to begiven, infants should be identified as “athigh risk of CP” when they are highrisk, and therefore commence diagnos-tic-specific early intervention straight

away. For those who are not at highrisk but have early signs, they should beregularly comprehensively assessed toensure access to the most appropriateearly intervention.

Why is Cerebral Palsy Missed andWhy is the Description so Difficultfor Doctors to Make?

Health professionals hesitate to usethe terminology CP early for a numberof reasons, but importantly the conditionis not a diagnosis; it is a “clinicaldescription.” There are no biologicalmarkers or definitive tests for CP. The

Figure 5 (Continued)

122 DEV DISABIL RES REV � CEREBRAL PALSY—DON’T DELAY � MCINTYRE ET AL

Page 29: Handout Early Detection and Early Intervention for Cerebral … · Handout Early Detection and Early Intervention for Cerebral Palsy: Groundbreaking New Tools and Treatments Presenters:

term does not infer etiology, and it hasno prognostic value as severity and asso-ciated impairments are incrediblyvariable. However, 86% of parents knowsomething is wrong with their childbefore a description of CP is given [Bairdet al., 2000]. Leading up to this point intime, most parents experience being toldby their medical team that the plan is to“wait and see.” When health professio-nals use the term “wait and see,” theintention is to use this time to rule outother diagnoses, delay the delivery of

bad news or provide time for the childto grow out of it.

Rule out other diagnosesDoctors first rule out other diag-

noses that may explain the symptoms.This is an important step as there areother conditions that mimic the earlysigns of CP which can have importanttreatment implications, such as: neuro-degenerative conditions (e.g., AtaxiaTelangiectasia); metabolic syndromes(e.g., Glutaric acidemia); and genetic

conditions (e.g., Trisomy 18, AngelmanSyndrome, Cornelia de Lange syn-drome) [Badawi et al., 1998].

Delay the delivery of bad newsDoctors sometimes delay the

delivery of bad news while exploringthe possibility of a less severe, morecommon disorder such as DCD. Differ-ential diagnosis is critical as it informsthe selection of intervention strategiessuited to the specific condition. Forexample, effective intervention for

Figure 5 (Continued)

123DEV DISABIL RES REV � CEREBRAL PALSY—DON’T DELAY � MCINTYRE ET AL

Page 30: Handout Early Detection and Early Intervention for Cerebral … · Handout Early Detection and Early Intervention for Cerebral Palsy: Groundbreaking New Tools and Treatments Presenters:

DCD involves cognitive approachesbest suited to school-aged children,whereas CP intervention uses a varietyof pharmacological, motor, social andcognitive intervention approaches thatcan commence early in life. It is there-fore important that children with CPare differentiated earlier in order to getthe right interventions early.

Provide opportunity to grow out of itDoctors sometimes delay the

delivery of bad news to provide enoughtime for the possibility that the childmay “grow out of it.” However forthose few whose motor signs resolve,commonly they transpire to have an in-tellectual impairment or behavioralproblems [Nelson and Ellenberg, 1981].

The brain injury responsible forCP may be suspected or even con-firmed in the neonatal period, but thediagnosis for many does not occur untilthe motor impairments and activity lim-itations inherent in the definition areobservable. This lag time is not usefulto families or to the child.

“. . .. . .I am very worried about myson, he is 5 months old, and over the lastmonth I have noticed he seems to go

into strange positions, I especially noticeit each time I pick him up. I went to theGP, who agreed and thought I shouldsee a pediatrician. I went to the pediatri-cian who agreed they were unusual andsaid let us see how he is when he is 10months old. That is too long to wait! So Iwent to another pediatrician who agreedagain, it was abnormal, so now I ambooked to go to a physiotherapist for fur-ther tests, and after that they will decidewhat to do” but I do not know what todo now. . .” (Personal communication,February 4, 2012, parent discussion withfirst author over the phone).

System barriers to description arealso potentially at work. For example,for any mother and her newborn,obstetricians hold vital informationabout maternal-fetal health. If the babyis premature or ill, care is immediatelytransferred to neonatal specialists, wherethe primary patient is now the infant,not the mother, and some of the rele-vant preconception and pregnancyhistory about risk factors for CP maynot be passed on. When the infant iswell and discharged from hospital, careis likely to be transferred to a commu-nity based general practitioner or

pediatrician who may lack access to therelevant maternal-fetal and/or neonatalmedical history. The pediatrician maythen be assessing a healthy baby thatmay just appear slightly “delayed,” andit is not until later in infancy that thegravity of the problem may be evident,precipitating a late diagnosis.

What are the Most ImportantThings that can be Done in ClinicalPractice to Describe Cerebral PalsyEarlier?

We propose a new clinical path-way that is designed to circumvent theexisting screening and diagnostic barriersby tying together the relevant evidenceneeded to make an earlier diagnosis andcommence earlier intervention (seePathways A and B). These pathwayshave been developed using GRADElevel evidence [Guyatt et al., 2008] and“traffic lights” to signify the effective-ness of the interventions [Novak andMcIntyre, 2010]. Green equals “go,”(high quality evidence to supportthe use of the intervention, thereforeuse this approach). Yellow equals“measure” (low quality or conflictingevidence supporting the effectiveness ofthe intervention). Red equals “stop”(high quality evidence indicating inef-fective interventions) [Novak andMcIntyre, 2010].

The serious nature of these stand-ard care limitations has led us toconclude that “waiting and seeing” ispotentially harmful to children with CPand their families. We therefore haveidentified solutions to three of themajor problems relating to the late di-agnosis of CP, which are timely andpossible for the health system to redress:

New clinical diagnostic and interventionpathways

When the system fails to recog-nize a child with CP very early due tousing the “wait and see” monitoringmode, this decision essentially ensuresthat infants receive limited or no diag-nostic-specific intervention within thecritical window of brain development.The window of brain development,where the brain is actively sproutingand pruning in response to activity, isoften misspent in children with CP. InPathways A and B, we review the evi-dence for early intervention possibilitiesin CP. The evidence tells us quiteclearly that general early interventionand parent interventions, designed toenhance in-home care characterized bypositive interactions, categoricallyimprove a child’s cognition with the

Figure 6

124 DEV DISABIL RES REV � CEREBRAL PALSY—DON’T DELAY � MCINTYRE ET AL

Page 31: Handout Early Detection and Early Intervention for Cerebral … · Handout Early Detection and Early Intervention for Cerebral Palsy: Groundbreaking New Tools and Treatments Presenters:

best effect seen in children of lowsocio-economic status. However, morerecent neuroplasticity evidence suggeststhat a skill-based, high-intensity practiceapproach to early intervention isrequired to impact on motor outcomes,as is the case in most adult brain inju-ries. These newer types of motorlearning approaches, which are effectivein older children with CP, requireurgent study within the CP infant pop-ulation. It is therefore the responsibilityof the health professional who observesmajor risk factors or a motor delay toinvestigate further, diagnose “at risk ofCP” early, and refer to early interven-tion at a minimum to optimize theircognitive function. We outline a wayto do this via systematic use of risk fac-tor history taking, neurobehavioralpredictive tools, in addition to MRI(Pathways A and B).

Promotion of a climate for new research thatwill improve outcomes

Late description of CP is creatinga major problem for recruitment ofinfants to promising early rehabilitativeand potentially curative studies. Lack ofdiagnosis is impeding the advancementof regenerative medicine, early inter-vention and other well-recognizedtreatments for CP yet to be tested inthe earlier years, for example, medicalinterventions for tone management,reflux, and epilepsy. When a healthprofessional identifies an infant at highrisk for CP, coupled with referral toearly intervention trials, it will help toaccelerate future discoveries for thesechildren and change the landscape ofthe diagnosis and prognosis.

Promotion of good family mental health andresilience for the long-term

If late description is not helpinginfants or research, are we helpingparents by sheltering them from badnews? A population study conducted inBritain found that parental dissatisfac-tion with delayed diagnosis of CP isassociated with higher rates of parentaldepression [Baird et al., 2000]. So itwould appear that sparing parents frombad news is unhelpful. Therefore earlyrecognition and provision of early pre-ventative mental health support forfamilies may help parents manage theinevitable stress, which could helpimprove family outcomes long-term.

The concept of “at risk” is not anew one. During the 1960s in theUnited Kingdom, there were “at risk”registers, with the usual accompanyingdebate over their value and cost effec-

tiveness. It was deemed not practicableto have universal screening of all chil-dren, but it was felt essential that allchildren at risk be monitored. In a letterto the Lancet in 1967 defending theconcept, Dr Ronald Mac Keith and col-leagues wrote, “by the criterion ofidentifying handicaps which are in somecases undoubtedly, and in other casesprobably, benefited by having treatmentstarted without delay, developmentaland neurological assessment from theage of 5 months is neither difficult norinefficient” [Mac Keith et al., 1967].The concept itself was deemed by mostto be a sound one. The problem at thistime was the “at risk” criteria used wasidentifying up to 60% of all live birthsin an area. The goal of these programswas to screen 10–20% of all births toidentify the majority of the invisiblehandicaps that is, those that would oth-erwise not be identified until the 4thand 5th years of life. We recommendthat the “wait and see” period isreframed to the “wait and be” period,where children are diagnosed “at risk ofCP” early and are immediately referredto diagnostic-specific early intervention.

What Tools can be Used toAccurately Predict and IdentifyEarly Signs of Cerebral Palsy?

Imaging

Practice point. All children with a pre-sumed or suspected brain injury shouldhave magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

Neuroimaging is used as an inte-gral part of the diagnostic process[Krageloh-Mann and Horber, 2007].MRI is the gold-standard neuroimagingtechnique for elucidating the pathoge-nesis of CP: white matter damage ofimmaturity (WMDI) including PVL,lesions of the deep grey matter, malfor-mations, focal infarcts, and cortical andsubcortical lesions [Bax et al., 2006].Cranial ultrasound (CUS) is a safe andinexpensive alternative used in the neo-natal intensive care unit (NICU) todetect structural changes in the new-born brain. However, MRI has highersensitivity and specificity than CUS as apredictor of CP in very low birthweight (VLBW) infants [Mirmiranet al., 2004]. Despite strong correlationsbetween clinical findings and MRI, 12–14% of children with CP will have nor-mal MRIs [Bax, 2006; Krageloh-Mannand Horber, 2007] and therefore MRIshould not be used in isolation for mak-ing the description of CP.

Newer techniques and technolo-gies are being developed which arelikely to advance the role of imaging inthe diagnostic process and treatmentselection process. Advanced neuroimag-ing techniques such as diffusionweighted imaging (DWI) and diffusiontensor imaging (DTI) have been uti-lized to more specifically identifydiffuse or subtle white matter injuries[Hoon and Faria, 2010]. Magnetic reso-nance spectroscopy (MRS), providesmeasures of brain biochemistry and isproving an effective tool in understand-ing prognosis in NE and preterminfants [Ancora et al., 2010; Van Kooijet al., 2012]. Large deformation diffeo-morphic metric mapping (LDDMM),where a 3D atlas of the brain is pro-duced, shows great promise forilluminating the structural brain abnor-malities that occur in CP with thepotential for informing selection,design, and measurement of rehabilita-tion interventions [Faria et al., 2011].

General neuromotor and developmentalassessments

Many neuromotor and develop-mental assessments with soundpsychometric properties exist for infantsand young children. For diagnostic pur-poses, tools with predictive propertiesare the most worthwhile. However,there has been a historical preference bypediatricians and neonatal follow-upteams to use discriminative tools thatassess a combination of: abnormal mus-cle tone of the trunk and extremities;the presence of primitive reflexes; thequality and quantity of voluntary move-ment (e.g., milestone acquisition); andthe presence of involuntary movement.The problem with this persistent prac-tice is that these tools are only usefulfor discriminating between infants whoare developing typically from thosewho are not. Determining who is typi-cally developing and who is not is evenmore complicated in premature infantsbecause they have their own develop-mental trajectory [Heineman andHadders-Algra, 2008; Spittle et al.,2008a]. Routinely used neuro observa-tions and standardized developmentaltests were not designed to specificallydetect the presence of CP and thus fur-ther compound the complexity of theCP diagnostic process. They may behelpful to some diagnosticians but willlack adequate specificity for most.

Ideally the aim of monitoringought to be to differentiate why somechildren are not developing normally,to enable diagnostic-appropriate best-

125DEV DISABIL RES REV � CEREBRAL PALSY—DON’T DELAY � MCINTYRE ET AL

Page 32: Handout Early Detection and Early Intervention for Cerebral … · Handout Early Detection and Early Intervention for Cerebral Palsy: Groundbreaking New Tools and Treatments Presenters:

available evidence-based intervention tobe provided. This paper will now focuson the evidence for the best availabletools for predicting and recognizingCP, distinct from tools better suited tosuspecting global developmental delay(GDD). Clinometric reviews indicatethat different tools need to be used atdifferent ages to describe and detect CPand that a combination of tools is bestpractice [Heineman and Hadders-Algra,2008; Spittle et al., 2008a].Practice point. A combination of riskfactor history taking, neurological ex-amination that includes assessment ofquality of movement, volitional move-ment and neuroimaging are required. Ahealth professional with clinical exper-tise and experience in motordevelopment should interpret and eval-uate the findings generated by theseassessments (Figure 6).

Tools predictive of cerebral palsy

Qualitative assessment of general movements[Einspieler et al., 2004)]. Of all thetools available to predict CP, GMs isconsistently the most predictive, withspecificity and sensitivity rates higherthan MRI [Burger and Louw, 2009].The GMs assessment measures the qual-ity of spontaneous movements with theinfant lying supine. Scoring is done bytrained assessors via observation ofvideo footage and can be used from thepreterm period until 20 weeks postterm age (PTA). Two distinct timeperiods for assessment exist; the writh-ing period (up to 9 weeks PTA) andthe fidgety period (from 9 to 20 weeksPTA). In both periods, the infant isscored with “normal” or “abnormal”GMs. Abnormal GMs are then furtherclassified. In the writhing period,abnormal GMs known as “crampedsynchronized” have been shown to behighly predictive of CP (sensitivity5100%; specificity 5 40%; PPV59.4%;NPV5 100% [Spittle et al., 2009]. Ifthe abnormal GM of “cramped syn-chronized” is followed by the abnormalGM “absent fidgety” (in the fidgety pe-riod) this has consistently shown thehighest predictive value for CP (Darsa-klis and Snider, 2011).

A recent systematic review of 17studies demonstrated the accuracy ofthe GMs assessment in predicting neu-rodevelopmental outcomes in infants upto 2 years with a sensitivity �92% andspecificity �82% [Burger, 2009]. TheGMs assessment has been found to besuperior to ultrasound findings in pre-dicting CP [Einspieler et al., 2004]

When correlated with MRI findings,namely white matter injury, the GMsassessment (specifically “absent fidgety”)has been shown to accurately predictCP 100% of the time in very preterminfants [Spittle et al., 2008a] Evidenceof the predictive value of GMs in fullterm infants with hypoxic ischemicencephalopathy (HIE) has also beendemonstrated [Prechtl et al., 1993].Importantly, the GMs assessment hasgood clinical utility because it is quick,inexpensive, and noninvasive. Ratertraining is provided by the GMs trust.Hammersmith infant neurological assessment[Haataja et al., 1999]. The Hammer-smith assessment is based on theDubowitz and Dubowitz [1981] assess-ment of the newborn and is a simplemethod of examining infants between 2and 24 months of age. There are threeparts to the examination: neurologicsigns, developmental milestones, andbehavior. In the first section, the neu-rologic exam, an optimality score isobtained from the assessment of cranialnerve function, posture, quality andquantity of movement, tone, andreflexes and reactions. The second andthird sections do not form part of theoverall score but give important addi-tional information regardingdevelopmental progress. Recent studieshave demonstrated the predictive valueof the Hammersmith infant neurologicalassessment (HINE) for CP. A largestudy [Pizzardi et al., 2008] of 658infants who were either preterm orterm with NE were prospectively stud-ied from birth until 12 monthscorrected age. ROC curve analysis wasused to test the predictive power of theHINE. Global HINE scores showedhigh prediction of CP at all ages (ROCcurve areas above 0.9), but most impor-tantly movement quality and quantitytest items had even higher predictivepower.

A retrospective study of 70 infantsdiagnosed at 2 years with CP observeda strong (r 5 282) negative correlationbetween HINE scores at 3–6 months ofage and levels of GMFCS [Romeoet al., 2008a]. Infants in GMFCS levels3–5 scored below 40, whereas those inlevels 1–2 scored between 40 and 60.Combined use of the HINE and GMsat 3 months PTA can be used todescribe an infant as at “high risk” ofCP [Romeo et al., 2008b].

Practice point. Routine follow-up forpreterm and sick infants should bescheduled at three-months and six-months corrected, not the conventional

four-months, to enable medical teamsto use the best predictive tools to helpmake the description of CP earlier.

Practice point. When examining infants,do not discount CP when spasticity ordyskinesia is not identified. A period oftime lapses between the original damageto the developing brain, whether inutero or during early infancy/child-hood, and the appearance ofimpairments. It is well known that thebrain, which begins development inutero, continues to develop duringchildhood. Thus a child’s neural devel-opment is “age-specific,” so braindysfunction will manifest according tothe brain’s development at that age[Hadders-Algra, 2004]. Compared witha mature brain which responds to injurywith specific and localized signs, ayoung infant may present with general-ized and nonspecific signs (e.g.,hypotonia) [Kuban and Leviton, 1994;Hadders-Algra, 2004]. It is proposedthat further brain development in aninfant, including myelination of axonsand maturation of basal ganglia neurons,must occur before spasticity and dyski-nesia can manifest [Kuban and Leviton,1994]. The infant with hypotonia maythus “develop” spasticity and dyskinesiaby the age of 1 or 2 years, as the com-plexity of neural functions increases[Kuban and Leviton, 1994; Hadders-Algra, 2004].Movement assessment of infants [Chandleret al., 1980]. The movement assess-ment of infants (MAI) is a criterion-referenced scale that evaluates neuro-motor dysfunction in high risk infantsat 4, 6, 8, and 12 months of age. Theassessment is carried out by a therapistand takes 30–60 min to complete,requiring a manual but no specializedequipment. The MAI assesses tone,primitive reflexes, equilibrium reactions,and volitional movement. The test hasbeen shown to be twice as sensitive asthe Bayley scales of infant developmentin detecting early signs of CP [Harris,1987]. Studies of predictive values at 4and 8 months of age report sensitivityrates ranging from 73.5 to 96.0 andspecificity of 62.7–78.2 [Spittle et al.,2008b]. A recent investigation of thepredictive validity of the MAI at 6months of age demonstrated a signifi-cant correlation between MAI scoresand Bayley scales of infant developmentat 12 months, although sensitivity andspecificity for CP were not reported[Metgud et al., 2011].Other useful assessments. Several otherneuromotor assessments, such as the test

126 DEV DISABIL RES REV � CEREBRAL PALSY—DON’T DELAY � MCINTYRE ET AL

Page 33: Handout Early Detection and Early Intervention for Cerebral … · Handout Early Detection and Early Intervention for Cerebral Palsy: Groundbreaking New Tools and Treatments Presenters:

of infant motor performance (TIMP)[Campbell, 2005], The neuro-sensorymotor development assessment(NSMDA) [Burns et al., 1989], and theAlberta infant motor scale (AIMS)[Piper and Darrah, 1994], are appropri-ately used to discriminate infants withabnormal motor function from thosetypically developing. All have soundpsychometrics. Of these tools, theTIMP has been shown to be sensitiveto change in response to intervention[Campbell et al., 1995].Assessment summary.

� High risk infants should be routinely

assessed using the GMs preferably three

times; during early admission, around

term corrected (if preterm) and at 9–14

weeks (corrected for gestational age).

� “High risk of CP” designation should

be given to infants at 9–14 weeks (cor-

rected) with a combination of absent

fidgety GMs and white matter injury

on MRI.

� After 20 weeks (corrected), use the

HINE or MAI.

� MRI is the best imaging tool to eluci-

date the pathogenesis of CP and should

be offered to all infants who have

abnormal findings.

� Use the CP description form to

describe motor type and severity to

inform intervention planning.

CONCLUSIONUntil recently, CP was considered

unpreventable, incurable, and almostuntreatable. However, preventive effortsincluding: rubella vaccination, iodinesupplementation in areas of severe irondeficiency, anti-D vaccination, prevent-ing methyl–mercury contamination,reducing the number of embryos trans-ferred in invitro fertilization (IVF) (inAustralia), and enforcing laws for seatbelts and fencing around swimmingpools have been successful preventionstrategies. Recently, magnesium sulfateand hypothermic intervention have alsostarted to prevent a small proportion ofCP. Both of these interventions occurvery early and require health professio-nals to be mindful of CP as a potentialoutcome that could be prevented orcured. With advances in medical, publichealth, and allied health research, thelikelihood of further breakthroughs areprobable.

Further research is required todetermine why infants born at term, notat “high risk” of CP in the newborn pe-riod go on to develop CP. Healthprofessionals need to be aware that 45%

of all CP falls into this category. There-fore we recommend prompt response toparental concerns with screening andassessments as outlined, followed by im-mediate referral for intervention forthose infants then considered “at risk.”

Premature and term infants withbrain injury identified on MRI are athigh risk of CP. We have identifiedpathways which make recognizing “athigh risk” of CP easier for health pro-fessionals. We propose a change indiagnostic practice, a shift away fromreferral for intervention following a for-mal (most often late) description to oneof referral when an infant is “at highrisk” of CP. This will provide the op-portunity for targeted research in earlyintervention, thus providing optimaloutcomes for children with CP.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSMany thanks to the families that

participate in CP Registers and researchthroughout the world, the clinicianswho work in this important area, andDr. Monique Hines for her fine edito-rial skills. This research was conductedat Cerebral Palsy Alliance ResearchInstitute, The University of NotreDame, Australia.

REFERENCES

ACPR Group. 2009. Report of the AustralianCerebral Palsy Register, birth years 1993–2003, www.cpregister-aus.com.au.

Alberman ED, Goldstein H. 1970. The “at risk”register: a statistical evaluation. Br J PrevSoc Med 24:129–135.

Ancora G, Soffritti S, Lodi R, et al. 2010. Acombined a-EEG and MR spectroscopystudy in term newborns with hypoxic-ische-mic encephalopathy. Brain Dev 32:835–842.

Andersen G, Mjoen T, Vik T. 2010. Prevalenceof speech problems and the use of augment-ative and alternative communication in chil-dren with cerebral palsy: a registry-basedstudy in Norway. Perspect on AugmentAltern Commun 19:12–20.

Andersen GL, Romundstad P, De LaCruz J, et al.2011. Cerebral palsy among children bornmoderately preterm or at moderately lowbirthweight between 1980 and 1998: a Eu-ropean register-based study. Dev Med ChildNeurol 53:913–919.

Arnaud C, White-Koning M, Michelsen SI, et al.2008. Parent-reported quality of life of chil-dren with cerebral palsy in Europe. Pedia-trics 121:54–64.

Badawi N, Felix JF, Kurinczuk JJ, et al. 2005.Cerebral palsy following term newbornencephalopathy: a population-based study.Dev Med Child Neurol 47:293–298.

Badawi N, Watson L, Petterson B, et al. 1998.What constitutes cerebral palsy? Dev MedChild Neurol 40:520–527.

Baird G, McConachie H, Scrutton D. 2000.Parents’ perceptions of disclosure of the di-agnosis of cerebral palsy. Arch Dis Child83:475–480.

Bax M, Goldstein M, Rosenbaum P, et al. 2005.Proposed definition and classification of cer-ebral palsy, April 2005. Dev Med ChildNeurol 47:571–576.

Bax M, Tydeman C, Flodmark O. 2006. Clinicaland MRI correlates of cerebral palsy. JAMA296:1602–1608.

Beaino G, Khoshnood B, Kaminski M, et al.2010. Predictors of cerebral palsy in verypreterm infants: the EPIPAGE prospectivepopulation-based cohort study. Dev MedChild Neurol 52:e119–125.

Blair E, Stanley FJ. 1997. Issues in the classifica-tion and epidemiology of cerebral palsy.Ment Retard Dev Disabil Res Rev 3:184–193.

Blair E, Watson L. 2006. Epidemiology of cere-bral palsy. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med11:117–125.

Blair E, Watson L, Badawi N, et al. 2001. Lifeexpectancy among people with cerebralpalsy in Western Australia. Dev Med ChildNeurol 43:508–515.

Blank R, Smits-englesman B, Polatajko H, et al.2011. Eurpoean Academy for ChildhoodDisability (EACD): recommendations onthe definition, diagnosis and interventionof developmental coordination disorder(long version). Dev Med Child Neurol54:e1–7

Burger M, Louw Q. 2009. The predictive validityof general movements—a review. Eur J Pae-diatr Neurol 13:408–420.

Burns Y, Ensby R, Norrie M. 1989. The neuro-sensory motor development assessment. Part1: development and administration of thetest. Aust J Physiother 35:141–157.

Campbell SK. 2005. The test of infant motor per-formance. Test user’s manual version 2.0.Chicago: LLC.

Campbell SK, Kolobe TH, Osten ET, et al.1995. Construct validity of the test ofinfant motor performance. Phys Ther 75:585–596.

Carlo WA, McDonald SA, Tyson JE, et al. 2011.Cytokines and neurodevelopmental out-comes in extremely low birth weight infants.J Pediatr 159:919–925, e913.

Carlsson M, Hagberg G, Olsson I. 2003. Clinicaland aetiological aspects of epilepsy in chil-dren with cerebral palsy. Dev Med ChildNeurol 45:371–376.

Chandler L, Andrews M, Swanson M, et al.1980. Movement assessment of infants: amanual. Washington: Rolling Bay.

Council on Children With Disabilities, Sectionon Developmental Behavioral Pediatrics,Bright Futures Steering Committee andMedical Home Initiatives for Children WithSpecial Needs Project Advisory Committee.2006. Identifying Infants and Young Chil-dren With Developmental Disorders in theMedical Home: An Algorithm for Develop-mental Surveillance and Screening Pedia-trics;118:405–420.

Crowther CA, Hiller JE, Doyle LW. 2002. Mag-nesium sulphate for preventing preterm birthin threatened preterm labor. Cochrane Data-base Syst Rev CD001060.

Darsaklis V, Snider L, Majnemer A, et al. 2011.Predictive validity of Prechtl’s method onthe qualitative assessment of general move-ments: a systematic review of the evidence.Dev Med Child Neurol 53:896–906.

de Vries LS, vanHaastert I, Benders M, et al.2011. Myth: cerebral palsy cannot be pre-dicted by neonatal brain imaging. Semin Fe-tal Neonatal Med 16:279–287.

127DEV DISABIL RES REV � CEREBRAL PALSY—DON’T DELAY � MCINTYRE ET AL

Page 34: Handout Early Detection and Early Intervention for Cerebral … · Handout Early Detection and Early Intervention for Cerebral Palsy: Groundbreaking New Tools and Treatments Presenters:

Dubowitz L, Dubowitz V. 1981. The neurologi-cal assessment of the preterm and full-termnewborn infant. London: Heinemann.

Einspieler C, Prechtl HF, Bos AF, et al., editors.2004. Prechtl’s method on the qualitativeassessment of general movements in preterm,term and young infants. Clinics in develop-mental medicine. London: Mac Keith Press.

Ellenberg JH, Nelson KB. 1988. Cluster of perina-tal events identifying infants at high risk fordeath or disability. J Pediatr 113:546–552.

Faria AV, Hoon A, Stashinko E, et al. 2011. Quan-titative analysis of brain pathology based onMRI and brain atlases—applications for cere-bral palsy. Neuroimage 54:1854–1861.

Gonzalez FF, Ferriero DM. 2009. Neuroprotec-tion in the newborn infant. Clin Perinatol36:859–880, vii.

Gorter J, Ketelaar M, Rosenbaum P, et al. 2008.Use of the GMFCS in infants with CP: theneed for reclassification at age 2 years orolder. Dev Med Child Neurol 51:46–52.

Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, et al. 2008.GRADE: an emerging consensus on ratingquality of evidence and strength of recom-mendations. BMJ 336:924–926.

Haataja L, Mercuri E, Regev R, et al. 1999.Optimality score for the neurologic exami-nation of the infant at 12 and 18 months ofage. J Pediatr 135:153–161.

Hadders-Algra M. 2004. General movements: awindow for early identification of childrenat high risk for developmental disorders. JPediatr 145:S12–S18.

Hagberg B, Hagberg G, Olow I, et al. 1996. Thechanging panorama of cerebral palsy in Sweden.VII. Prevalence and origin in the birth year pe-riod 1987-90. Acta Paediatr 85:954–960.

Hagglund G, Andersson S, Duppe H, et al. 2005.Prevention of dislocation of the hip in chil-dren with cerebral palsy. The first ten yearsof a population-based prevention pro-gramme. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87:95–101.

Harris SR. 1987. Early detection of cerebral palsy:sensitivity and specificity of two motorassessment tools. Bayley motor scale and themovement assessment of infants (MAI). JPerinatol 7:11–15.

Heineman K, Hadders-Algra M. 2008. Evaluationof neuromotor function in infancy—a sys-tematic review. J Dev Behav Pediatr29:315–323.

Himmelmann K, Uvebrant P. 2011. Function andneuroimaging in cerebral palsy: a popula-tion-based study. Dev Med Child Neurol53:516–521.

Himmelmann K, Beckung E, Hagberg G, et al.2006. Gross and fine motor function andaccompanying impairments in cerebral palsy.Dev Med Child Neurol 48:417–423.

Himmelmann K, Hagberg G, Uvebrant P. 2010.The changing panorama of cerebral palsy inSweden. X. Prevalence and origin in thebirth-year period 1999-2002. Acta Paediatr99:1337–1343.

Himpens E, Oostra A, Franki I, et al. 2010. Pre-dictability of cerebral palsy and its character-istics through neonatal cranial ultrasound ina high-risk NICU population. Eur J Pediatr169:1213–1219.

Himpens E, Van denBroeck C, Oostra A, et al.2008. Prevalence, type, distribution, and se-verity of cerebral palsy in relation to gesta-tional age: a meta-analytic review. Dev MedChild Neurol 50:334–340.

Hoon AH, Faria AV. 2010. Pathogenesis, neuroi-maging and management in children withcerebral palsy born preterm. Dev DisabilRes Rev 16:302–312.

Jacobs SE, Tarnow-Mordi WO. 2010. Therapeu-tic hypothermia for newborn infants withhypoxic–ischaemic encephalopathy. J Pae-diatr Child H 46:568–576.

Jahnsen R, Villien L, Aamodt G, et al. 2004.Musculoskeletal pain in adults with cerebralpalsy compared with the general population.J Rehabil Med 36:78–84.

Jarvis S, Glinianaia SV, Arnaud C, et al. 2005.Case gender and severity in cerebral palsyvaries with intrauterine growth. Arch DisChild 90:474–479.

Kirby RS, Wingate MS, VanNaarden Braun K,et al. 2011. Prevalence and functioning ofchildren with cerebral palsy in four areas ofthe United States in 2006: a report from theAutism and Developmental DisabilitiesMonitoring Network. Res Dev Disabil32:462–469.

Krageloh-Mann I, Horber V. 2007. The role ofmagnetic resonance imaging in elucidatingthe pathogenesis of cerebral palsy: a system-atic review. Dev Med Child Neurol49:144–151.

Kuban KC, Leviton A. 1994. Cerebral palsy. NEngl J Med 330:188–195.

Kurinczuk JJ, White-Koning M, Badawi N.2010. Epidemiology of neonatal encephal-opathy and hypoxic–ischaemic encephalop-athy. Early Hum Dev 86:329–338.

Love SC. 2007. Better description of spastic cere-bral palsy for reliable classification. Dev MedChild Neurol 49:24–25.

Mac Keith R, Robson P, Howorth I. 1967. The"at risk" infant. Lancet 290:886–887.

McAdams R, Juul S. 2011. Cerebral palsy: preva-lence, predictability, and parental counseling.Neoreviews 12:e564.

McIntyre S, Badawi N, Brown C, et al. 2011.Population case-control study of cerebralpalsy: neonatal predictors for low-risk termsingletons. Pediatrics 127:e667–e673.

McIntyre, S., Taitz, D., Keogh, J. et al. 2012. Asystematic review of risk factors for cerebralpalsy in children born at term in developedcountries. Dev Med Child Neurol Nov 26DOI: 10.1111/dmcn.12017.

McManus V, Guillem P, Surman G, et al. 2006.SCPE work, standardization and defini-tion—an overview of the activities of SCPE:a collaboration of European CP registers.Zhongguo Dang Dai Er Ke Za Zhi 8:261–265.

Metgud D, Patil V, Dhaded S. 2011. Predictivevalidity of the movement assessment ofinfants (MAI) for six-month-old very lowbirth weight infants. J Phys Ther 3:19–23.

Michelsen SI, Uldall P, Kejs AM, et al. 2005.Education and employment prospects in cer-ebral palsy. Dev Med Child Neurol 47:511–517.

Miller S, Ramaswamy V, Michelson D, et al. 2005.Patterns of brain injury in term neonatalencephalopathy. J Pediatr 146:453–460.

Mirmiran M, Barnes P, Keller K, et al. 2004.Neonatal brain magnetic resonance imagingbefore discharge is better than serial cranialultrasound in predicting cerebral palsy invery low birth weight preterm infants.Pediatrics 114:992–998.

Mutlu A, Livanelioglu A, Gunel MK. 2008. Reli-ability of Ashworth and modified Ashworthscales in children with spastic cerebral palsy.BMC Musculoskelet Disord 9:44.

Nanba Y, Matsui K, Aida N, et al. 2007. Mag-netic resonance imaging regional T1 abnor-malities at term accurately predict motoroutcome in preterm infants. Pediatrics120:e10–e19.

Nelson KB, Ellenberg JH. 1981. Apgar scores aspredictors of chronic neurologic disability.Pediatrics 68:36–44.

Nelson KB, Ellenberg JH. 1986. Antecedents ofcerebral palsy. Multivariate analysis of risk.N Engl J Med 315:81–86.

Newman CJ, O’Regan M, Hensey O. 2006.Sleep disorders in children with cerebralpalsy. Dev Med Child Neurol 48:564–568.

Novak I, Hines M, Goldsmith S, et al. Clinicalprognostic messages from a systematicreview about cerebral palsy. Pediatrics130:e1285–1312.

Novak I, McIntyre S. 2010. The effect of educa-tion with workplace supports on practi-tioners’ evidence-based practice knowledgeand implementation behaviors. Aust OccupTher J 57:386–393.

Odding E, Roebroeck ME, Stam HJ. 2006. Theepidemiology of cerebral palsy: incidence,impairments and risk factors. Disabil Rehabil28:183–191.

Palisano R, Rosenbaum P, Walter S, et al. 1997.Development and reliability of a system toclassify gross motor function in childrenwith cerebral palsy. Dev Med Child Neurol39:214–223.

Parkes J, Hill N, Platt MJ, et al. 2010. Oromotordysfunction and communication impairmentsin children with cerebral palsy: a registerstudy. Dev Med Child Neurol 52:1113–1119.

Parkes J, White-Koning M, Dickinson HO, et al.2008. Psychological problems in childrenwith cerebral palsy: a cross-sectional Euro-pean study. J Child Psychol Psychiatry49:405–413.

Pharoah PO. 2006. Risk of cerebral palsy in multi-ple pregnancies. Clin Perinatol 33:301–313.

Piper M, Darrah J. 1994. Motor assessment of thedeveloping infant. Phildaelphia: WB Saunders.

Pizzardi A, Romeo DMM, Cioni M, et al. 2008.Infant neurological examination from 3 to12 months: predictive value of the singleitems. Neuropediatrics 39:344–346.

Prechtl H, Ferrari F, Cioni G. 1993. Predictivevalue of general movements in asphyxiatedfullterm infants. Early Hum Dev 35:91–120.

Reid S, Carlin J, Reddihough D. 2011a. Distri-bution of motor types in cerebral palsy: howdo registry data compare? Dev Med ChildNeurol 53:233–238.

Reid SM, Carlin JB, Reddihough DS. 2011b.Rates of cerebral palsy in Victoria, Australia,1970 to 2004: has there been a change? DevMed Child Neurol 53:907–912.

Roijen LE, Postema K, Limbeek VJ, et al. 2001.Development of bladder control in childrenand adolescents with cerebral palsy. DevMed Child Neurol 43:103–107.

Romeo DMM, Cioni M, Scoto M, et al. 2008a.Neuromotor development in infants with cer-ebral palsy investigated by the Hammersmithinfant neurological examination during the firstyear of age. Eur J Paediatr Neurol 12:24–31.

Romeo DMM, Guzzetta A, Scoto M, et al. 2008b.Early neurologic assessment in preterm-infants:integration of traditional neurologic examina-tion and observation of general movements.Eur J Paediatr Neurol 12:183–189.

Rosenbaum PL, Missiuna C, Echeverria D, et al.2009. Proposed motor development assess-ment protocol for epidemiological studies inchildren. J Epidemiol Community Health63(Suppl 1):i27–i36.

SCPE. 2000. A collaboration of cerebral palsy regis-ters. Dev Med Child Neurol 42:816–824.

Shankaran S. 2008. Prevention, diagnosis, and treat-ment of cerebral palsy in near-term and terminfants. Clin Obstet Gynecol 51:829–839.

128 DEV DISABIL RES REV � CEREBRAL PALSY—DON’T DELAY � MCINTYRE ET AL

Page 35: Handout Early Detection and Early Intervention for Cerebral … · Handout Early Detection and Early Intervention for Cerebral Palsy: Groundbreaking New Tools and Treatments Presenters:

Shevell MI, Dagenais L, Hall N. 2009. Comor-bidities in cerebral palsy and their relation-ship to neurologic subtype and GMFCSlevel. Neurology 72:2090–2096.

Sigurdardottir S, Vik T. 2011. Speech, expressivelanguage, and verbal cognition of preschoolchildren with cerebral palsy in Iceland. DevMed Child Neurol 53:74–80.

Soo B, Howard JJ, Boyd RN, et al. 2006. Hipdisplacement in cerebral palsy. J Bone JointSurg Am 88:121–129.

Spittle A, Boyd R, Inder T, et al. 2009. Predictingmotor development in very preterm infants at12 Months’ corrected age: the role of qualita-tive magnetic resonance imaging and generalmovements assessments. Pediatrics 123:512–517.

Spittle A, Brown N, Doyle L, et al. 2008a. Qual-ity of general movements is related to whitematter pathology in very preterm infants.Pediatrics 121:e1184–e1189.

Spittle AJ, Doyle LW, Boyd RN. 2008b. A sys-tematic review of the clinimetric propertiesof neuromotor assessments for preterminfants during the first year of life. Dev MedChild Neurol 50:254–266.

Stanley FJ, Watson L. 1992. Trends in perinatalmortality and cerebral palsy in Western Aus-tralia, 1967 to 1985. BMJ 304:1658–1663.

Surman G, Bonellie S, Chalmers J, et al. 2006.UKCP: a collaborative network of cerebralpalsy registers in the United Kingdom. JPublic Health (Oxf) 28:148–156.

Tran U, Gray PH, O’Callaghan MJ. 2005. Neona-tal antecedents for cerebral palsy in extremelypreterm babies and interaction with maternalfactors. Early Hum Dev 81:555–561.

Van Kooij BJM, Benders MJNL, Anbeek P, et al.2012. Cerebellar volume and proton magneticresonance spectroscopy at term, and neurode-velopment at 2 years of age in preterm infants.Dev Med Child Neurol 54:260–266.

Van Marter L, Kuban K, Allred E, et al. 2011.Does bronchopulmonary dysplasia contributeto the occurrence of cerebral palsy amonginfants born before 28 weeks of gestation?Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonat Ed 96:F20–F29.

Watson L, Blair E, Stanley F. 2006. Report of theWestern Australian Cerebral Palsy Register tobirth year 1999. West Perth, Australia: Tele-thon Institute for Child Health Research.

WHO Multicenter Growth Reference Study Group.2006. WHO motor development study: win-dows of achievement for six gross motor develop-ment milestones. Acta Paediatr Suppl 450:86–95.

Wichers MJ, Odding E, Stam HJ, et al. 2005. Clinicalpresentation, associated disorders and aetiologi-cal moments in cerebral palsy: a Dutch popula-tion-based study. Disabil Rehabil 27:583–589.

Wu YW, Colford JM, Jr. 2000. Chorioamnionitisas a risk factor for cerebral palsy: a meta-analysis. JAMA 284:1417–1424.

Wu YW, Croen LA, Shah SJ, et al. 2006. Cerebralpalsy in a term population: risk factors andneuroimaging findings. Pediatrics 118:690–697.

129DEV DISABIL RES REV � CEREBRAL PALSY—DON’T DELAY � MCINTYRE ET AL