Advertisement

Neonatology pp 457-469 | Cite as

Physical Examination of the Newborn

  • Alessandra Coscia
  • Paola Di Nicola
  • Enrico Bertino
  • Claudio Fabris
Reference work entry

Abstract

A complete physical examination of every newborn should be performed within 24 h from birth: although there is not international standard, routine examination is regarded as a good practice in the guidelines for postnatal care.

Aims of the routine neonatal examination are to detect problems arising from maternal or familiar diseases; to confirm or not some conditions suspected during antenatal period; to detect any acute condition requiring urgent diagnosis and therapy; to diagnose congenital problems not already identified at birth; to screen some specific conditions, such as developmental dysplasia of the hip and congenital cataract; and to provide initial health and educational advice for the newborn. In any case, routine examination may be an opportunity for the healthcare provider to discuss with the parents any questions or worries about their baby, to reassure them and to give them appropriate advice.

References

  1. Ainsworth SB, Wyllie JP, Wren C (1999) Prevalence and clinical significance of cardiac murmurs in neonates. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 80:F43–F45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. American Academy of Pediatrics (2000) Clinical practice guideline: early detection of developmental dysplasia of the hip. Pediatrics 105:896CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ballard JL, Novak KK, Driver MA (1979) A simplified score of fetal maturation of newly born infants. J Pediatr 95:769–774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ballard JL, Khoury JC, Wedig K et al (1991) New Ballard score, expanded to include extremely premature infants. J Pediatr 119:417–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barlow TG (1962) Early diagnosis and treatment of congenital dislocation of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br 44:B292–B301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brazelton TB (1973) Neonatal behavioural assessment scale. Spastics International Medical, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. Cameron N (2004) Measuring techniques and instruments. In: Nicoletti I, Benso L, Gilli G (eds) Physiological and pathological auxology. Firenze, Edizioni Centro Studi Auxologici, pp 117–159Google Scholar
  8. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2013c) Screening for critical congenital heart defects: morbidity and mortality weekly report (MMWR) podcasts. Retrieved 3 Mar 2013, from http://www.cdc.gov/nvbddd/pediatricgenetics/pulse.html
  9. Chan A, McCaul KA, Cundy PJ et al (1997) Perinatal risk of factors for developmental dysplasia of the hip. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 76:F94–F100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Demott K, Bick D, Norman R, et al (2006) Clinical guidelines and evidence review for post natal care: routine post natal care of recently delivered women and their babies last updated: February 2015Google Scholar
  11. Dezateux C, Brown J, Arthur R et al (2003) Performance, treatment pathways, and effects of alternative policy options for screening for developmental of the hip in the United Kingdom. Arch Dis Child 88:753–759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Driver CP, Losty PD (1998) Neonatal testicular torsion. Br J Urol 82:855–858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dubowitz L, Dubowitz V (1981) The neurological assessment of the preterm and full-term newborn infant. Clin Dev Med No 79. SIMP/Heinemann, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. Evans-Jones G, Kay SPJ, Weindling AM et al (2003) Congenital brachial palsy: incidence, causes and outcome in the UK and Republic of Ireland. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 88:F185–F189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Farrer KFM, Rennie JM (2003) Neonatal murmurs: are senior house officers good enough? Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 88:F147–F151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gibson P, Britton J, Hall DMB et al (1995) Lumbosacral skin markers and identification of occult spinal dysraphism in neonates. Acta Pediatr 84:208–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Godward S, Dezateux C (1998) Surgery for congenital dislocation of the hip in the UK as a measure of outcome of screening. Lancet 351:1149–1152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Goldstein M (2013) Critical complex congenital heart disease (CCHD). Congenital Cardiology Today 11(3):1–10Google Scholar
  19. Kriss VM, Desai NS (1998) Occult spinal dysraphism in neonates: assessment of high risk cutaneous stigmata on sonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 171:1687–1693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kugelman A, Hadab B, Ben-David J et al (1997) Preauricular tags and pits in the newborn: the role of hearing tests. Acta Paediatr 86:170–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kugelman A, Tubi A, Bader D et al (2002) Preauricular tags and pits in the newborn: the role of renal ultrasonography. J Pediatr 141:388–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mahle WT, Newburger JW, Matherne GP et al (2009) Role of pulse oximetry in examining newborns for congenital heart disease: a scientific statement from the AHA and AAP. Pediatrics 124(2):823–836CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Malessy MJ, Pondaag W (2009) Obstetric brachial plexus injuries. Neurosurg Clin N Am 20(1):1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McCrindle BW, Shaffer KM, Kan JS et al (1996) Cardinal clinical signs in the differentiation of hearth murmurs in children. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 150:169–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Medina LS, Crone K, Kuntz KM (2001) Newborns with suspected occult spinal dysraphism: a cost effectiveness analysis of diagnostic strategies. Pediatrics 108:e101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ortolani M (1937) Un segno poco noto e sua importanza precoce di prelussazione congenita dell’anca. Pediatrica (Napoli) 45:129–136Google Scholar
  27. Pondaag W, Malessy MJA, Thomeer RTWM (2004) Natural history of obstetric brachial plexus palsy: a systematic review. Dev Med Child Neurol 46:138–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Riede FT, Worner C, Dahnert I et al (2010) Effectiveness of neonatal pulse oximetry screening for detection of critical congenital heart disease in daily clinical routine – results from a prospective multicenter study. Eur J Pediatr 169(8):975–981CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Royal College of Anaesthetists, Royal College of Midwives, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (2007) Safer childbirth- minimum standards for the organisation and delivery of care in labour. RCOG Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  30. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (2016) Providing quality care for women a framework for maternity service standards, LondonGoogle Scholar
  31. Smythe JF, Teixeira OH, Vlad P et al (1990) Initial evaluation of heart murmurs: are laboratory tests necessary? Pediatrics 86:497–500PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Swaiman KF (1999) Neurologic examination of the term and preterm infant. In: Swaiman KF, Ashwal A (eds) Pediatric neurology: principles and practice, 3rd edn. Mosby, St Louis, p 69Google Scholar
  33. Thummala MR, Raju TN, Langeberg P et al (1998) Isolated single umbilical artery anomaly and the risk for congenital malformations: a meta-analysis. J Pediatr Surg 33:580–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Villar J, Cheikh Ismail L, Victora CG et al (2014) International standards for newborn weight, length, and head circumference by gestational age and sex: the newborn cross-sectional study of the INTERGROWTH-21st project. Lancet 384(9946):857–868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wolke D, Dave S, Hayes J et al (2002) Routine examination of the newborn and maternal satisfaction: a randomised controlled trial. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 86:F155–F160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wren C, Richmond S, Donaldson L (1999) Presentation of congenital heart disease in infancy: implications for routine examination. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 80:F49–F53CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alessandra Coscia
    • 1
  • Paola Di Nicola
    • 1
  • Enrico Bertino
    • 1
  • Claudio Fabris
    • 1
  1. 1.Neonatal Unit, University of TurinTurinItaly

Personalised recommendations