Preterm infants born at less than 31 weeks’ gestation have improved growth in cycled light compared with continuous near darkness

Massage therapy reduces hospital stay and occurrence of late-onset sepsis in very preterm neonates

“…In addition, the need for a long hospital stay period makes the presence of parents essential for assistance, once the parents' competence to understand and provide the premature infant's needs is consolidated as one of the main medical criteria for hospital discharge. 3 Studies involving the hospital stay period of preterm infants showed that relatively simple measures improve their prognoses, such as skin-to-skin contact reduces the painful sensation of term neonates 4 and promotes the development and parental relation of preterm infants; 5 the creation of a sleep-provoking environment increases the growth rate of very-low-birth-weight (VLBW) infants; 6 the application of tactile-kinesthetic stimulation contributes to both growth and development of preterm infants between 1000 and 2000 g, without adverse effects on physiological parameters; 7 instructions to first-child parents on how to bathe and massage favors parent-infant bonding; 8 and the participation of mothers through massage with moderate pressure improves growth and development rates of term infants. 9 Despite these evidences, in two systematic revisions, one regarding the tactile-kinesthetic stimulation in newborns with gestational age (GA) <37 weeks and birth weight <2500 g, 10 and one regarding the developmentoriented assistance method in preterm infants, 11 the authors considered the results as inconsistent and suggested that such interventions should be better investigated before being adopted without restrictions.…”

The Effects of Creating an Artificial Night on the Pattern of Weight Gain Among Preterm Neonates

“…In other words, continuous darkness has no merit over cyclical lighting. The findings reported by Brandon et al (2002) showed that their intervention was more effective than ours in increasing weight gain. This difference is probably due to the fact that their intervention was implemented for a longer period of time (six weeks) and with a different method compared to ours (10).…”

“…Rivkees et al (2004) found that cyclical lighting, which was synchronized with natural lighting of day and night, improved weight gain pattern among preterm neonates (9). Brandon et al (2002) also found cyclical lighting more effective than continuous near darkness in increasing preterm neonates' weight gain (10). Nonetheless, Boo et al (2002) found that premature neonates' exposure to cyclical twelve-hour lighting or continuous darkness did not significantly affect their weight gain (3).…”

“…Seemingly, continuous darkness is less stressful for neonates than continuous lighting, resulting in insignificant difference between the groups in the study of Mirmiran et al (2003). Brandon et al (2002) compared the effects of cyclical lighting and continuous near darkness on the growth of preterm neonates born at a gestational age of less than 31 weeks. They allocated the neonates in the cyclical lighting group to three subgroups as follows: 1. cyclical lighting since birth; 2. cyclical lighting since the 32nd postconception week; and 3. cyclical lighting since the 36th post-conception week.…”

The development of potentially better practices to support the neurodevelopment of infants in the NICU

“…419 When lighting was reduced at night, weight gain, ventilator days, length of stay and scores on the Brazelton motor cluster were improved at the time of discharge. 420 Brandon et al 421 found that babies born at less than 31 weeks gestation exposed to cycled light, had improved growth while hospitalized.…”