SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.39 issue3Comparative analysis of anthropometric indicators for diagnosing obesity and predicting cardiometabolic risk in Mexican adolescentsUsefulness of a nutritional strategy on dyslipidemia in pediatric patients with terminal chronic kidney disease author indexsubject indexarticles search
Home Pagealphabetic serial listing  

My SciELO

Services on Demand

Journal

Article

Indicators

Related links

  • On index processCited by Google
  • Have no similar articlesSimilars in SciELO
  • On index processSimilars in Google

Share


Nutrición Hospitalaria

On-line version ISSN 1699-5198Print version ISSN 0212-1611

Nutr. Hosp. vol.39 n.3 Madrid May./Jun. 2022  Epub Oct 17, 2022

https://dx.doi.org/10.20960/nh.03907 

Original Papers

Longitudinal study of the newborn small for gestational age. Growth recovery and conditioning factors

Estudio longitudinal del recién nacido pequeño para la edad gestacional. Crecimiento recuperador y factores condicionantes

Aránzazu Recio-Linares, reference searching, research design, database development, data collection, statistical analysis, paper editor1  ; Carolina Bezanilla-López, research design, data collection2  ; Alberto Barasoain-Millán, research design, data collection2  ; Mikel Domínguez Uribe-Echevarría, data collection3  ; Clara García-Rodríguez, data collection1  ; Marta Torrejón-López, data collection1  ; Elia Pérez-Fernández, statistical analysis4  ; Gonzalo Botija-Arcos, data collection1  ; Alfonso Barrio-Merino, data collection1 

1Gastroenterology and Nutrition Section. Department of Pediatrics. Hospital Universitario Fundación de Alcorcón. Alcorcón, Madrid. Spain

2Endocrinology Section. Department of Pediatrics. Hospital Universitario Fundación de Alcorcón. Alcorcón, Madrid. Spain

3Neonatology Section. Department of Pediatrics. Hospital Universitario Fundación de Alcorcón. Alcorcón, Madrid. Spain

4Research Unit. Hospital Universitario Fundación de Alcorcón. Alcorcón, Madrid. Spain

Abstract

Background:

small-for-gestational-age (SGA) newborns present a higher morbidity and mortality rate when compared to infants born appropriate for gestational age (AGA), as well as insufficient growth, with height far from their target and in some cases a low final height (< -2 SDs).

Objective:

the aim of this study was to determine when catch-up growth (CUG) in height occurs in these children, and which factors are associated with lack of CUG.

Material and methods:

this is a retrospective study of SGAs born between 2011 and 2015 in a secondary hospital. Anthropometric measurements were taken consecutively until CUG was reached, and fetal, placental, parental, newborn, and postnatal variables were studied.

Results:

a total of 358 SGAs were included from a total of 5,585 live newborns. At 6 and 48 months of life, 93.6 % and 96.4 % of SGAs achieved CUG, respectively. By subgroups, symmetric SGAs performed worse than asymmetric SGAs with CUG in 84 % and 92 % at 6 and 48 months of life, respectively. The same occurred in the subgroup of preterm SGAs with respect to term SGAs, with worse CUGs of 88.2 % and 91.2 % at 6 and 48 months of life, respectively. Prematurity, symmetrical SGA, intrauterine growth retardation (IUGR), preeclampsia, previous child SGA, perinatal morbidity, and comorbidity during follow-up were associated with absence of CUG.

Conclusions:

the majority of SGAs had CUG in the first months of life. The worst outcomes were for preterm and symmetric SGAs.

Keywords: Small for gestational age; Intrauterine growth retardation; Catch-up growth; Growth pattern; Growth and development; Short stature

Resumen

Antecedentes:

el recién nacido pequeño para la edad gestacional (PEG) presenta mayor morbimortalidad que el recién nacido con peso adecuado (PAEG), así como un crecimiento insuficiente con talla alejada de la talla diana y, en algunos casos, talla final baja (< -2 DE).

Objetivo:

el objetivo de este estudio fue determinar en qué momento se produce el crecimiento compensador (CUG) de la talla en estos niños y conocer qué factores se asocian a la falta de dicho crecimiento compensador.

Material y métodos:

estudio retrospectivo de los recién nacidos PEG entre los años 2011 y 2015 en un hospital secundario. Se tomaron medidas antropométricas de forma consecutiva hasta alcanzar el CUG y se estudiaron las variables fetales, placentarias, parentales, neonatales y posnatales.

Resultados:

se incluyeron 358 PEG de un total de 5585 recién nacidos vivos. A los 6 y 48 meses de vida alcanzaron el CUG el 93,6 % y 96,4 % de los PEG, respectivamente. Por subgrupos, los PEG simétricos obtuvieron peores resultados que los PEG asimétricos, con CUG del 84 % y 92 % a los 6 y 48 meses de vida, respectivamente. Lo mismo ocurrió en el subgrupo de PEG prematuros respecto de los PEG a término, con CUG peores del 88,2 % y 91,2 % a los 6 y 48 meses de vida, respectivamente. La prematuridad, el PEG simétrico, la restricción del crecimiento intrauterino, la preeclampsia, tener un hijo previo PEG, la morbilidad perinatal y la comorbilidad durante el seguimiento se asociaron a la ausencia de CUG.

Conclusiones:

la mayoría de los PEG alcanzaron el CUG en los primeros meses de vida. Los peores resultados fueron para los PEG prematuros y simétricos.

Palabras clave: Pequeño para la edad gestacional; Restricción del crecimiento intrauterino; Crecimiento recuperador; Patrón de crecimiento; Crecimiento y desarrollo; Talla baja

INTRODUCTION

According to the current growth standards, a small-for-gestational-age (SGA) infant is a newborn with low birth weight and/or length for gestational age and sex. The most appropriate definition of SGA has been sought for decades. In 1967, Battaglia et al. (1) set the cutoff at the 10th percentile, and two years later Usher et al. (2) set the cutoff at the z-score of -2 SD. Subsequently, major societies such as the World Health Organization (3) and the International Society of Pediatric Endocrinology (4) have maintained different opinions, setting the cutoff at the 10th percentile and a z-score of -2 SD, respectively. There is still confusion as to the correct definition of SGA (5). It is imperative to choose the cutoff point that best identifies neonates requiring specific follow-up. In 2016, Zeve et al. (6) published a systematic review that included literature reported between the years 2010 and 2015, in which a greater number of articles used the 10th percentile definition. However, they observed that newborns with more perinatal morbidity and mortality were grouped below the z-score of -2 SD or the 3rd percentile. This idea is also reflected in the work of Zhang-Rutledge et al. (7), who find a higher morbidity and mortality (resuscitation at birth, ICU admission, and perinatal death) in the group of newborns below the 5th percentile, in consideration of the group of newborns between the 5th and 10th percentiles.

In high-income countries, the incidence of SGA (using the 10th percentile definition) varies between 4.6 % and 15.3 %, with the lowest figures in Sweden, Norway, and Finland, and the highest values in Spain and Portugal (8). In low-income countries, the incidence of SGA is much higher. In the 138 countries included in the Lee et al. (9) paper, 32.4 million SGA infants were born in 2010, accounting for 27 % of all births, of which 29.7 million were term, and almost 3 million were preterm. In absolute numbers, India had the most SGA children in the world (as it registered the most births), while Pakistan had the highest percentage, with 47 % of newborns being SGA, almost one in every two births.

SGA newborns are classified into asymmetric SGA, which accounts for 70-80 % of the total, and are those with birth weight and/or length below the cutoff point but with a normal head circumference (HC), and symmetric SGA, which accounts for the remaining 20-30 % and have birth weight, length, and HC below the cutoff point. The origin of the latter occurs early in gestation, leading to a worse prognosis (10). Although the terms small for gestational age and intrauterine growth retardation (IUGR) are used interchangeably, it is worth noting there is a difference between them. The first definition of IUGR came from Warkany et al. in 1961 to describe 23 term newborns weighing less than 2000 g (11). IUGR is a dynamic term that refers to abnormal growth during gestation, while the term SGA is static and refers to weight and/or length at birth. A 2018 consensus defines IUGR as either birth weight below the 3rd percentile or three of the following criteria: birth weight below the 10th percentile, CP below the 10th percentile, length below the 10th percentile, prenatal diagnosis of IUGR, prenatal conditions associated with IUGR such as congenital infections, preeclampsia, etc. (12). A prospective longitudinal study states that the combination of fetal weight below the 3rd percentile and Doppler abnormalities in the umbilical artery could define IUGR and constitutes a poor prognostic factor (13). The most significant causes of IUGR are maternal (extreme age, race, socioeconomic level, toxic habits, arterial hypertension, preeclampsia, diabetes, assisted reproduction techniques, mother born SGA, or previous child born SGA), fetal (genetic causes, infections, congenital malformations, or metabolic diseases), and placental (placental insufficiency, chorioamnionitis) (10).

Regarding growth, we know that SGAs are born small, and some remain small into adulthood. Catch-up growth, which some SGAs (14) experience, is defined as the accelerated rate of growth that follows a period of inhibition with the aim of regaining what was lost. Different definitions of CUG have been established, such as an increase in weight and/or length above the z-score of -2 SD, the 3rd percentile, the 10th percentile, or +0.67 SD over the follow-up (15). The ideal timing of CUG is unknown, as rapid CUG has been linked to metabolic syndrome and adult cardiovascular disease, and slow CUG has been linked to growth failure and neurodevelopmental problems (16,17). Lei et al. (18) describe five growth trajectories in term SGAs from birth to seven years of age, and state that the ideal is to reach the 30th percentile in the first months of life and reach the 60th percentile at seven years of age. For their part, Shi et al. (19) also distinguish five types of trajectory in SGA growth and state that the ideal trajectory crosses two growth lines during the first months of life, from a percentile below 10 to a percentile between 25 and 50.

There are no clear guidelines to achieve this objective of slow and progressive catch-up. The different clinical practice guidelines in our setting (20) and at the international level (4) agree on the importance of identifying these newborns at risk in order to carry out adequate follow-up. There are no published data on feeding, although breastfeeding vs. formula feeding has shown better results at the metabolic profile and is considered the method of choice (21).

In any case, experiencing CUG for height does not mean acquiring the genetic height, since on average, the final height of these children remains 1 SD below their target height (22). In addition, a high percentage of SGAs have low height in adulthood (below -2 SD). This was found in a Swedish study of full-term SGAs where 7.9 % had short stature at 18 years (23). Similar data were obtained in another study where 13.6 % of full-term SGAs remained short in adulthood (24). Of all adults with short stature, in 20 % of cases the cause is being born SGA (23,25).

This work aims to: a) estimate the probability of CUG in SGA newborns at 3, 6, 12, and 48 months of life; b) observe if there are any differences in growth between different groups: symmetrical SGA newborns vs. asymmetrical SGA, and term SGA newborns vs. preterm SGA; and c) identify factors related to the absence of CUG at three months of life.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

DESIGN

This was a retrospective, longitudinal study of SGA newborns in a secondary hospital between September 12, 2011 and September 12, 2015.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

Newborns of any gestational age with birth weight and/or length at birth ≤ -2 SD were included in the study, using the growth standards of the 2010 Spanish study as reference.

EXCLUSION CRITERIA

SGA newborns without serial anthropometries were excluded from the study.

DATA COLLECTION

All newborns with an SGA diagnosis born between September 2011 and September 2015 were identified. Data concerning gestation and newborns were retrieved from the hospital's electronic medical record.

MEASUREMENTS

During follow-up, anthropometric measurements were obtained by nursing staff either from the hospital or the primary care center, taking the mean of two values, expressing height in centimeters and weight in kilograms. Children under two years of age were measured in the supine decubitus position and weighed sitting or lying down. In those over two years of age, both measurements were taken standing upright: at three months, six months, and one year of age naked, and at four years of age with underwear. The tools used were calibrated. The growth standards of the 2010 Spanish study were used as reference.

DEFINITIONS

Symmetrical SGAs were considered those with head circumference, weight, and length ≤ -2 SD. Asymmetrical SGAs were those with normal head circumference with weight and/or length ≤ -2 SD. Those SGAs with altered head circumference and only weight or length were placed in the group that their growth most resembled (symmetrical or asymmetrical SGAs).

Preterm newborns were considered those born at less than 37 weeks of gestation, and term newborns were considered those born at 37 weeks or more. In preterm newborns, the z-score values were obtained by correcting the chronological age up to two years of corrected age, for which the probable date of delivery was taken and not the date of birth.

Four groups were thus created:

  • − Group A1: SGA by weight (asymmetric): birth weight ≤ -2 SD. Normal head circumference and length.

  • − Group A2: SGA by length (asymmetric): length at birth ≤ -2 SD. Normal head circumference and weight.

  • − Group A3: SGA by weight and length (asymmetric): weight and length at birth ≤ -2 SD. Normal head circumference.

  • − Group B: SGA by weight, length, and head circumference (symmetric): weight, length, and head circumference at birth ≤ -2 SD.

PRIMARY STUDY VARIABLE

Time to reach CUG from birth, defined as a change in +0.67 SD of length throughout follow-up.

SECONDARY VARIABLES

The following variables were also collected: 1) newborn: birth weight, gestational age, sex, intrauterine growth retardation (the latter defined as SGA with echo-Doppler alterations); 2) parental: maternal age, biological mother's ethnicity, biological mother and father's height, genetic or target height, parity, previous child SGA in case of parity ≥ 2, gestational diabetes, preeclampsia (arterial hypertension and proteinuria), maternal smoking; 3) fetal: multiple pregnancy; 4) placental: maternal chorioamnionitis; 5) postnatal: perinatal pathology (intraventricular hemorrhage, patent ductus arteriosus, abdominal surgery, respiratory distress requiring CPAP ≥ 24 hours), comorbidity during follow-up, feeding during first six months of life (artificial breastfeeding, exclusive breastfeeding, mixed breastfeeding).

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

To describe the distribution of qualitative data, absolute and relative frequencies were presented. To describe the distribution of quantitative data, mean and standard deviation or median and interquartile range were presented, according to the distribution of the data.

To answer the main objective, the Kaplan-Meier survival function of time to CUG was estimated in total and for each group — A2, A3, and B — at three months, six months, 12 months, and 48 months.

The survival functions of groups A2, A3, and B were compared using the log-rank test. Differences between term SGA and preterm SGA were also analyzed in total and stratified by group (A2, A3, and B).

A univariate analysis was performed using the chi-square test or Fisher's exact test to compare qualitative variables; Student's t-test was used to compare approximately normal quantitative variables. The nonparametric Mann-Whitney U-test was used to compare quantitative variables in the absence of normality.

In response to the last objective, in which the aim was to study the possible factors associated with the absence of CUG for height at three months, the relative risks (RR) of the different factors under study were estimated. A modified Poisson (26) regression was used to fit these models.

All tests were considered bilateral, and p values < 0.05 were considered significant.

The study was approved by the Clinical Research Ethics Committee (CEIC) of the center.

RESULTS

DESCRIPTIVE RESULTS

During the study period, 384 SGA newborns were obtained from a total of 5,585 live newborns, of which 22 were excluded due to lack of access to anthropometric data, and four were excluded because anthropometries were not available before three months of life, resulting in a final sample of 358. Of these, 186 were females (52 %) and 172 were males (48 %), and 34 were preterm (9.5 %).

Of all 358, 42 presented data of IUGR with an altered echo-­Doppler (11.7 %).

There were 25 symmetric SGAs (7 %), 60 weight-asymmetric SGAs (16.7 %), 200 length-asymmetric SGAs (55.9 %), and 73 weight- and length-asymmetric SGAs (20.4 %).

Of all SGAs, 15 presented comorbidity during follow-up: patent ductus arteriosus with surgical closure in two cases, atrial septal defect with surgical closure in one case, bronchopulmonary dysplasia in three cases, hemolytic disease of the newborn in one case, necrotizing enterocolitis in one case, and prolonged hospitalization (> 1 month) in seven cases. In addition, eight were diagnosed with genetic alterations and were not excluded from the study because they had auxologic behavior similar to the rest of the patients: osteogenesis imperfecta, hereditary spherocytosis, sickle cell anemia, neurofibromatosis type 1, Angelman's syndrome, nephrogenic diabetes insipidus, Léri-Weill syndrome, and microcephaly + severe pulmonary valvular stenosis syndrome.

At birth, on average, preterm infants have the lowest weight and length values, while symmetric SGAs (which included term and preterm infants) have the worst mean SD in both weight and height (Table I).

Table I. Mean of anthropometric data at birth of all SGA and by groups. Weight is expressed in grams; height and PC in centimeters 

In total, 13 SGAs did not undergo CUG at four years (3.6 %), and 20 SGAs remained with a height z-score at four years < -2.5 SD, of which only six received GH.

ANALYTICAL RESULTS

  • − In the group of all SGAs, we observed that most achieved CUG during the first three months of life or CE, and those who did not achieve CUG during this time rarely achieved it later.

    In this group CUG was experienced at three months of life or corrected age (CA) (88 %), at six months of life or CA (93.6 %), and at 12 months of life or CA (95.3 %). At 48 months of life, 96.4 % of SGA infants achieved CUG (345/358) (Fig. 1) (Table II).

  • − When comparing the different types of SGA, we observed that symmetrical SGAs (group B) had worse length CUG results, and this was true at all ages.

    In group A2 (asymmetric of length), CUG occurred at three months of life or CA (92 %), at six months of life or CA (94 %), and at 12 months of life or CA (95 %); in group A3 (asymmetric of weight and length), CUG occurred at three months of life or CA (80.8 %), at six months of life or CA (94.5 %), and at 12 months of life or CA (94.5 %); in group B (symmetric) at three months of life or CA (72 %), at six months of life or CA (84 %), and at 12 months of life or CA (92 %) (Fig. 2) (Table II).

  • − When comparing SGA by gestational age, we observed that preterm SGAs obtained worse length CUG results at all ages. This difference in success was maintained in the analysis by subgroups (A2 term vs. A2 preterm, A3 term vs. A3 preterm, and B term vs. B preterm), with the worst growth outcomes in preterm group B, i.e., symmetrical and preterm SGA.

    They made length CUGs in the term SGA group at three months of age (90.4 %), at six months of age (94.1 %), and at 12 months of age (95.7 %); and in the preterm SGA group at three months of CA (64.7 %), at six months of CA (88.2 %), and at 12 months of CA (91.2 %) (Table II).

    By subgroups, in subgroup A2 at 12 months of life or CA, 95.3 % of full-term SGAs (95 % CI, 91.6 %-97.7 %) and 88.9 % of preterm SGAs (95 % CI, 61.2 %-94.4 %) experienced CUG for height. In subgroup A3 at 12 months, CUG rate was 94.7 % in term SGAs (95 % CI, 86.8 %-98.6 %) and 93.8 % in preterm SGAs (95 % CI, 73.3 %-99.6 %). And finally, in subgroup B at 12 months, CUG rate was 94.1 % in term SGAs (95 % CI, 76.5 %-99.6 %), and 87.5 % in preterm SGAs (95 % CI, 57.7 %-99.3 %) (Fig. 3).

  • − Regarding the possible factors associated with the absence of CUG of length at three months, up to six variables were identified by univariate analysis.

    They were prematurity with RR of 3, being symmetric SGA with RR on being weight-asymmetric of 3.4, presenting IUGR with RR of 3.9, having maternal preeclampsia with RR of 3.7, having a previous SGA child with RR of 3.1, presenting perinatal pathology with RR of 7.7, and presenting comorbidity during follow-up with RR of 4.5 (Table III)

Figure 1. Catch-up growth in height of all SGA newborns 

Table II. Estimated CUG in total, by type of SGA and gestational age 

Figure 2. Catch-up growth in height of SGA newborns by type of SGA 

Figure 3. Catch-up growth in height of SGA newborns by gestational age 

Table III. Factors associated with absence of CUG at 3 months of age 

Table III (cont.). Factors associated with absence of CUG at 3 months of age 

DISCUSSION

This study is the only one published so far in our environment on the longitudinal growth of SGA newborns. In our study, the incidence of SGA newborns was 6.87 %, lower than the 15.3 % previously described in Spain (8). This is probably because we used the definition of SGA as weight and/or height below a z-score of -2 SD. The previous study used the 10th percentile as their cutoff point.

On the other hand, we also found a lower number of symmetrical SGAs, 7 % of the total number of SGAs, compared to what has been previously described in the literature, close to 20-30 % (10), which can be explained by placing 15 unclassifiable SGA neonates (with altered CP + only weight or length) in the asymmetrical SGA group.

Regarding the timing of CUG, we obtained more favorable results than those reported in the literature, with a CUG rate at six months of 93.6 % and one at four years of 96.4 %, highlighting that CUG is mostly achieved during the first months of life; if not achieved at that age, it is rarely achieved later. The study with the most similar results belongs to Huang et al. (27), where 97.3 % of full-term SGAs achieve CUG before the age of two years. In other studies, the time of CUG (being defined as overcoming -2 SD) also takes place during the first months of life, although less favorable data are shown. In the work of Hokken-Koelega et al. (28), only 87.5 % of term SGAs had achieved CUG at two years of age, while in the Swedish work of Kalsberg and Albertsson the following term SGAs had achieved CUG: 86.6 % (23) at one year of life, 92 % (29) at two years of life, and 88 % (30) at two years of life. The CUG results of our study, which are more favorable than in most published studies, may be explained because the group of preterm infants was more than 28 weeks of gestation with less comorbidity than very extremely preterm infants. Further, there was a low percentage of symmetrical SGAs, which usually show worse results. Also, we chose as CUG criterion an increase by 0.67 standard deviations along follow-up, which is easier to achieve than others.

Regarding growth in subgroups, in our study we observed that symmetric SGAs achieved less CUG and did so later than asymmetric SGAs, which has also been described in the literature. Maciejewski et al. (31) compare the percentage of CUG at nine months between symmetrical and asymmetrical term SGA neonates, with results being 70 % for the former and 85 % for the latter. The same occurs in the work of Kaur et al., which compares the height of symmetrical and asymmetrical term SGA newborns during the first year of life, with results being at birth, one month, three months, six months, nine months, and 12 months lower in the symmetrical group in both females and males, with statistically significant differences at all ages in males and only at birth and one month in females (32). This is because symmetric SGAs are newborns who have been subjected to an unfavorable environment with early intrauterine growth restriction from the first trimester of gestation.

We also obtained worse CUG results in preterm SGAs with respect to term SGAs due to the greater morbidity presented by preterm infants. This generates a situation of delayed extrauterine growth which, added to the SGA situation, makes growth in this group worse (33,34). This finding is reflected in the work of Bocca-Tjeertes et al. (35), who compare the standard deviations at four years in a group of preterm SGA and term SGA. They found that in the former group, the SDs at that age were between -1.4 and -1.7 SD, and in the latter between -0.3 and -1.0 SD. In our study, the worst CUG outcome was for symmetrical and preterm SGAs.

In the analysis of variables related to the absence of CUG at three months, the following were identified as risk factors: prematurity, symmetric SGA, IUGR, maternal preeclampsia, previous child SGA, perinatal pathology, and comorbidity during follow-up. Mc Cowan et al. (36) find that the absence of CUG at six months is related to short stature at birth and male sex. In another study, they analyzed variables associated with the absence of CUG at three years in very low birth weight preterm infants; they found that multiparity and the height z score at 12 and 24 months were risk factors, the latter being the best predictor (37). For their part, Leger et al. (24) state that low height at birth and the height of both parents are predictors of low final height. Another study that finds maternal height important is that of Xie et al. (38), which also identifies smoking mothers with low weight gain during pregnancy as a risk factor for the absence of CUG at five years of age.

We found certain limitations. Since ours was a retrospective study, we could not choose the variables to be collected, so there is a lack of information when interpreting growth failure — for example, paternal height, a variable that should be taken into account in subsequent studies, as it has an important influence on the final height of the child. In addition, the measurements were not taken by the same person, which could lead to some interindividual variability. Certain rules were respected, such as using the same calibrated tools, with the patient naked and at the same ages. Another limitation is that the sample size was reduced by choosing “weight and/or height below -2 SD” as SGA criterion instead of other criteria that are more frequently met by newborns, for example, “weight and/or height below p10.” Choosing the cutoff at -2 SD reduced our sample but had the strength of picking up the most at-risk SGAs, which have a different behavior.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of SGA infants show adequate CUG during the first months of life, leaving a small percentage of these, especially premature and symmetrical SGAs, with insufficient growth and low height in adulthood.

The study highlights the importance of knowing the risk factors associated with the absence of CUG in order to identify the most at-risk newborns and establish appropriate follow-up and management. Furthermore, there is a need to homogenize the criteria that define SGA and CUG, and to develop prospective longitudinal studies that will help us better understand growth in these children.

REFERENCES

1. Battaglia, F.C., Lubchenco, L.O. (1967) A practical classification of newborn infants by weight and gestational age. J Pediatr, 71, 159-163. [ Links ]

2. Usher, R., McLean, F. (1969) Intrauterine growth of live-born Caucasian infants at sea level: standards obtained from measurements in 7 dimensions of infants born between 25 and 44 weeks of gestation. J Pediatr, 74, 901-910. [ Links ]

3. Report of a WHO Expert Committee. (1995) Physical Status: The Use and Interpretation of Anthropometry. World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser, 854, 1-452. [ Links ]

4. Clayton, P. E., Cianfarani, S, Czernichow, P., Johannsson, G., Rapaport, R., Rogol, A. (2007) Consensus Statement: Management of the Child born Small for Gestational Age through to Adulthood. A Consensus Statement of the International Societies of Pediatric Endocrinology and The Growth Hormone Research Society. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 92 (3), 804-810. [ Links ]

5. Laron, Z., Mimouni, F. (2005) Confusion around the definition of small for gestational age (SGA). Pediatr Endocrinol Rev, 2, 364-365. [ Links ]

6. Zeve, D., Regelmann, M.O., Holzman, I. R., Rapaport, R. (2016) Small at birth, but how small? The definition of SGA revisited. Horm Resp Paediatr, 86, 357-360. [ Links ]

7. Zhang-Rutledge, K., Mack, L.M., Mastrobattista, J.M., Manisha, G. (2018) Significances and outcomes of fetal growth restriction below the 5thpercentile compared to the 5thto 10thpercentiles on midgestation growth ultrasonography J Ultrasound Med, 37, 2243-2249. [ Links ]

8. Ruiz, M., Goldblatt, P., Morrison, J., Kukla, L., Svancara, J., Riitta-Jarvelin, M... (2015) Mother's education and the risk of preterm and small for gestational age birth: a DRIVERS meta-analysis of 12 European cohorts. J Epidemiol Community Health, 69(9), 826-33. [ Links ]

9. Lee, A.C., Katz, J., Blencowe, H., Cousens, S., Kozuki, N., Vogel, J.P... (2013) National and Regional estimates of term and preterm babies born small for gestational age in 138 low-income and middle-income countries in 2010. Lancet Glob Health, 1:(1), e26-36. [ Links ]

10. Kesavan, K., Devaskar, S.U. (2019) Intrauterine growth restriction: Postnatal monitoring and outcomes. Pediatr Clin N Am, 66, 403-423. [ Links ]

11. Warkany, J., Monroe, B.B., Sutherland, B. (1961) Intrauterine growth retardation. The American Journal of Diseases of Children, 102 (2), 249-279. [ Links ]

12. Beune, I.M., Bloomfield, F.H., Ganzevoort, W., Embleton, N.D., Rozance, P., Van Wassenaer-Leemhuis, A.G...(2018) Consensus Based Definition of Growth Restriction in the Newborn. J Pediatr, 196, 71-76. [ Links ]

13. Unterscheider, J., Daly, S., Geary, M.P., Kennelly, M.M, McAuliffe, F.M, O'Donoghue, K... (2013) Optimizing the definition of intrauterine growth restriction: the multicenter prospective PORTO Study. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 208 (4), 290.e1-290.e6. [ Links ]

14. Wit, J.M., Boersma, B. (2002) Catch-up growth:definition, mechanisms and models. Journal of pediatric endocrinology and metabolism, 15: 1229-1241. [ Links ]

15. Campisi, S.C., Carbone, S., Zlotkin, S. (2019) Catch-up growth in full term small for gestational age infants: a systematic review. Adv Nutr, 10, 104-111. [ Links ]

16. Kerkhof, G.F., Willemsen, R.H., Leunissen, R.W., Breukhoven, P.E., Hokken-Koelega, A.C. (2012) Health profile of young adults born preterm: negative effects of rapid weight gain in early life. J Clin Endocrinol Metabol, 97, 4498-4506. [ Links ]

17. Van Dommelen, P., Van der Pal, S.M., Gravenhorst, J.B., Walther, F.J., Wit, J.M., Van der Pal, K.M. (2014) The Effect of Early Catch-Up Growth on Health and Well-Being in Young Adults. Ann Nutr Metab, 65:220-226. [ Links ]

18. Lei, X., Chen, Y., Ye, J., Ouyang, F., Jiang, F., Zhang, J. (2015) The optimal postnatal growth trajectory for term small for gestational age babies: a prospective cohort study. J Pediatr, 166, 54-58. [ Links ]

19. Shi, H., Yang, X., Wu, D., Wang, X., Li, T., Liu, H...(2018) Insights into infancy weight gain patterns for term small-for-gestational-age babies. Nutr J, 17(1), 97. [ Links ]

20. Díez López, I., Arriba Muñoz, A., Bosh Muñoz, J., Cabanas Rodríguez, P., Gallego Gómez, E., Martínez-Aedo Ollero, M.J. Pautas para el seguimiento clínico del niño pequeño para la edad gestacional. An Pediatr (Barc) 2012;76 (2):104.e1-104.e7 [ Links ]

21. de Zegher, F., Sebastiani, G., Gómez-Roig, M.D., López-Bermejo, A., Ibáñez, L. Breast-feeding vs formula-feeding for infants born small-for-gestational-age: divergent effects on fat mass and on circulating IGF-I and high-molecular-weight adiponectin in late infancy. j Clin Endocrinol Metab 2013;98(3): 1242-1247. [ Links ]

22. Maiorana, A., Cianfarani, S. (2009) Impact of growth hormone therapy on adult height of children born small for gestational age. Pediatrics, 124 (3), e519-e531. [ Links ]

23. Karlberg, J., Albertsson-Wikland, K. (1995) Growth in full-term small-for-gestational-age infants: From birth to final height. Pediatr Res, 38, 733-9. [ Links ]

24. Leger, J., Limoni, C., Collin, D., Czernichow, P. (1998) Prediction factors in the determination of final height in subjects born small for gestational age. Pediatr Res, 43(6), 808-12. [ Links ]

25. Leger, J., Levy-Marchal, C., Bloch, J., Pinet, A., Chevenne, D., Porquet, D...(1997) Reduced final height and indications for early development of insulin resistance in a 20 year old population born small for gestational age: regional cohort study. BMJ, 315(7104):341-7. [ Links ]

26. Zou, G. (2004) A Modified Poisson Regression Approach to Prospective Studies with Binary Data. Am J Epidemiol 2004;159(7):702-6. [ Links ]

27. Huang, L., Yang, S., Xiong, F. (2019) A prospective study about physical growth of children from birth to 2 years old born full term small for gestational age. Journal of Pediatrics and Child Health, 55(2), 199-204. [ Links ]

28. Hokken-Koelega, A.C., De Ridder, M.A., Lemmen, R.J., Den Hartog, H., De Muinck Keizer-Schrama, S.M., Drop, S.L. (1995) Children born small for gestational age: Do they catch up? Pediatr Res, 38 (2), 267-71. 33. [ Links ]

29. Karlberg, J.P., Albertsson, K., Kwan, E.Y., Lam, B.C., Low, L.C. (1997) The timing of early postnatal catch-up growth in normal, full-term infants born short for gestational age. Horm. Res, 48 (1), 17-24. [ Links ]

30. Albertsson-Wikland K, Karlberg J. Postnatal growth of children small for gestational age. Acta Paediatr Supl 1997;423:193-5. DOI: 10.1111/j.1651-2227.1997.tb18413.x [ Links ]

31. Maciejewski E, Hamon I, Fresson J, Hascoet JM. Growth and neurodevelopment outcome in symmetric versus asymmetric small for gestational age term infants. Journal of Perinatology 2016;36:670-5. DOI: 10.1038/jp.2016.48 [ Links ]

32. Kaur H, Kumar A, Kumar P. Longitudinal growth dynamics of term symmetric and asymmetric small for gestational age. Anthropol Anz 2017;74(1):25-37. DOI: 10.1127/anthranz/2016/0640 [ Links ]

33. Wit JM, Finken MJ, Rijken M, de Zegher F. Preterm growth restraint: a paradigm that unifies intrauterine growth retardation and preterm extrauterine growth retardation and has implications for the small-for-gestational-age indication in growth hormone therapy. Pediatrics 2006;117: e793-5. DOI: 10.1542/peds.2005-1705 [ Links ]

34. Hedegaard L, Halken S, Agaetoft L, Zachariassen G. Catch-up growth, rapid weight growth and continuous growth from birth to 6 years of age in very preterm born children. Neonatology 2018; 114: 285-93. DOI: 10.1159/000489675 [ Links ]

35. Bocca-Tjeertes IF, Reijneveld SA, Kerstjens JM, de Winter AF, Bos AF. Growth in small for gestational age preterm born children from 0 to 4 years: the role of both prematurity and SGA status. Neonatology 2013;103(4):293-9. DOI: 10.1159/000347094 [ Links ]

36. McCowan L, Harding J, Barker S, Ford C. Perinatal predictors of growth at six months in small for gestational age babies. Early Human Development 1999;56:205-16. DOI: 10.1016/s0378-3782(99)00044-4 [ Links ]

37. Arai S, Sato Y, Muramatsu H, Yamamoto H, Aoki F, Okai Y, et al. Risk factors for absence of catch-up growth in small for gestational age very low-birthweight infants. Pediatrics International 2019;61(9):889-94. DOI: 10.1111/ped.13939 [ Links ]

38. Xie C, Epstein CH, Eiden RD, Shenassa ED, Li X, Liao Y, et al. Stunting at 5 years among SGA newborns. Pediatrics 2016;137(2): e20152636. DOI: 10.1542/peds.2015-2636 [ Links ]

Funding:no funding was required for the development of this work.

Recio Linares A, Bezanilla López C, Barasoain Millán A, Domínguez Uribe-Echevarría M, García Rodríguez C, Torrejón López M, Pérez Fernández E, Botija Arcos G, Barrio Merino A. Longitudinal study of the newborn small for gestational age. Growth recovery and conditioning factors. Nutr Hosp 2022;39(3):520-529

Received: October 26, 2021; Accepted: December 28, 2021

Correspondence: Aránzazu Recio Linares. Sección de Gastroenterología y Nutrición. Servicio de Pediatría. Hospital Universitario Fundación de Alcorcón. C. Budapest, 1, 28922 Alcorcón, Madrid. Spain e-mail: aran.recio.linares@gmail.com

Conflicts of interest:

the authors declare no conflicts of interest in relation to the preparation and publication of this article.

Authors’ contributions:

reference searching: Recio Linares A. Research design: Recio Linares A., Bezanilla López C., and Barasoain Millán A. Database development: Recio Linares A. Data collection: Recio Linares A., Bezanilla López C., Barasoain Millán A., Domínguez Uribe-Echevarría M., García Rodríguez C., Torrejón López M., Botija Arcos G., and Barrio Merino A. Statistical analysis: Pérez Fernández E., and Recio Linares A. Paper editor: Recio Linares A..

Creative Commons License This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License