Motor coordination difficulties and physical fitness of extremely‐low‐birthweight children

• Published in: Developmental medicine and child neurology 2009-02, Vol.51 (2), p.136-142
• Main Authors: BURNS, YVONNE R, DANKS, MARCELLA, O’CALLAGHAN, MICHAEL J, GRAY, PETER H, COOPER, DAVID, POULSEN, LEITH, WATTER, PAULINE
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adolescent; Adolescents; Body Composition; Body Weight; Cardiovascular Physiological Phenomena; Child; Child Development; Comparative Analysis; Developmental Stages; Early Adolescents; Female; Gestational Age; Human Posture; Humans; Infant, Extremely Low Birth Weight - physiology; Infant, Newborn; Infants; Male; Motor Development; Motor Skills Disorders - physiopathology; Musculoskeletal Physiological Phenomena; Oxygen Consumption; Physical Disabilities; Physical Endurance; Physical Fitness; Physical Fitness - physiology; Preadolescents; Predictor Variables; Pregnancy; Preschool Children; Psychomotor Skills; Regression Analysis; Respiration
• ISSN: 0012-1622; 1469-8749
• DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8749.2008.03118.x

Motor coordination difficulties and poor fitness exist in the extremely low birthweight (ELBW) population. This study investigated the relative impact of motor coordination on the fitness of ELBW children aged 11 to 13 years. One hundred and nine children were recruited to the study: 54 ELBW participants (mean age at assessment 12y 6mo; 31 male, 23 female; mean birthweight 769g, SD 148g; mean gestational age 26.6 weeks, SD 2.1 weeks) and 55 comparison children (mean age at assessment 12y 5mo; 28 males, 27 females; at least 37 weeks’ gestation). All children completed the Movement Assessment Battery for Children (MABC), functional tests of postural stability and strength, growth measures, and tests of respiratory function. Maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max) was calculated from a 20m shuttle run test as a measure of fitness. The ELBW group had greater problems with postural stability (p=0.001) and motor coordination (p=0.001), with 70% rated as having a definite motor problem on the MABC brackets (those who scored less than the 5th centile on the MABC). The ELBW was also less fit than the comparison group (p=0.001), with 45% below the 10th centile for VO2max. There were differences between the groups for growth, strength, and particularly respiratory function. However, respiratory function did not significantly correlate with VO2max in the ELBW group. Motor coordination was the most powerful predictor of VO2max in both the ELBW (p=0.001) and the comparison groups (p=0.001).