Advertisement

European Journal of Pediatrics

, Volume 154, Supplement 4, pp S85–S89 | Cite as

Psychosocial aspects in the treatment of children with myelomeningocele: An assessment after a decade

  • Anna Rüdeberg
  • Filippo Donati
  • Georges Kaiser
Living Pediatrics Symposium in Honour of the 80th Birthday of Professor E. Rossi, Berne, Switzerland

Abstract

The aim of this study was to recognize the possible psychological advantages when children with a severe CNS disorder like myelomeningocele (MMC) are given very early rehabilitation treatment. One hundred and seven newborns with MMC seen between 1971–1992 were prospectively analysed with respect to two different therapeutic approaches. The children born during the period 1971–1980 did not receive very early therapeutic rehabilitation treatment, whereas those born during the period 1981–1992, received this treatment. In the latter group, special attention was paid to support an improvement in the difficult relationship between the parents and the child with MMC as well as between parents and caregivers. The following statistically significant differences between the two treatment programmes were found: (1) all children achieved independent locomotion at 5 years, in the very early intervention group, compared to only 35% (P<0.001) in the group without this programme. Orthopaedic operations in the first-mentioned group were markedly reduced; (2) urological surgery decreased drastically in the group with very early urodynamic rehabilitation. Thus, there were 0.6 operations per patient in the older group, but only 0.06 operations per patient in the younger one (P<0.001); (3) normal schooling was reached by 76% (22/29) and social continence by 80% (23/29) of the children with very early interventional therapy. In the older group only 54% reached normal schooling (P<0.05) and 29% social continence (P<0.001). The very early co-ordinated medical and physiotherapeutic rehabilitation treatment of children with MMC usually reduces the psychosocial stress and improves the quality of life of these children and of their families.

Key words

Myelomeningocele Psychosocial Rehabilitation Social Therapy 

Abbreviations

MMC

myelomeningocele

References

  1. 1.
    Bettex M (1979) Indikationen und Kontraindikationen in der Behandlung der Myelomeningozele und des Hydrozephalus. Z Kinderchir 27: 120–124Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bobath K, Bobath B (1967) The very early treatment of cerebral palsy. Dev Med Child Neurol 9: 373PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    D'Avignon M, Norén L, Arman T (1981) Early physiotherapy ad modum Vojta or Bobath in infants with suspected neuromotor disturbance. Neuropediatrics 12: 232–241PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Guiney EG, Surana R (1994) Presidential Address to the Society for Research Into Spina Bifida and Hydrocephalus, at Hartford, Conn., USA. Eur J Pediatr Surg [Suppl]: I: 5–9Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hunt GM (1990) Open spina bifida: outcome for a complete cohort treated unselectively and followed into adulthood. Dev Med Child Neurol 32: 108–118PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kaiser G, Rüdeberg A (1986) Comments on the management of newborn with spina bifida cystica — active treatment or no treatment. Z Kinderchir 41: 141–143PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Köng E (1972) Die Früherfassung zerebraler Bewegungsstörungen. In: Zurbrügg RP (ed) Früherfassung von Kinderkrankheiten. Pädiatrische Fortbildungskurse für die Praxis. S Karger, Basel, pp 1–13Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lapides J, Diokno AC, Silber SJ, Lowe BS (1972) Clean, intermittent selfcatheterisation in the treatment of urinary tract disease. J Urol 107: 458–461PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lorber J (1971) Results of treatment of myelomeningocele. An analysis of 524 unselected cases, with special reference to possible selection for treatment. Dev Med Child Neurol 13: 279–303PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lorber J, Salfield AW (1981) Results of selective treatment of spina bifida. Arch Dis Child 56: 822–830PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Malone PS, Ransley PG, Kiely EH (1990) Preliminary report: the antegrade continence enema. Lancet 336: 1217–1218PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Malone PS, Wheeler RA, Williams JE (1994) Continence in patients with spina bifida: long term results. Arch Dis Child 70: 107–110PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Norén L, Franzén G (1981) An evaluation of seven postural reactions (Lagereflexe selected by Vojta) in twentyfive healthy infants. Neuropediatrics 12: 141–149Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    O'Brien J, Austen M, Sethi P, O'Boyle P (1991) Urinary incontinence: prevalence, need for treatment, and effectiveness of intervention by nurse. BMJ 303: 1308–1312PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ryan KD, Ploski Ch, Emans JB (1991) Myodysplasia—the musculoskeletal problem: habilitation from infancy to adulthood. Phys Ther 7: 935–945Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shandling B, Gilmour RF (1987) The enema continence catheter in spina bifida: successful bowel management. J Pediatr Surg 22: 271–273PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Surana RH, Quinn FMJ, Guiney EJ, Fitzgerald RJ (1991) Are the selection criteria for the conservative management of spina bifida still applicable? Eur J Pediatr Surg [Suppl] I: 35–37Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wyndaele JJ, Maes D (1990) Clean intermittent catheterisation: 12 follow up. J Urol 143: 906–908PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anna Rüdeberg
    • 1
  • Filippo Donati
    • 2
  • Georges Kaiser
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Paediatric Surgery, University of Berne, InselspitalUniversity Children's HospitalBerneSwitzerland
  2. 2.Division of Clinical Neurophysiology, Department of NeurologyUniversity of BerneBerneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations