[Is early treatment of infants at risk of spastic diplegia warranted?]. / La prise en charge précoce de l'enfant à risque de diplégie spastique est-elle utile? Est-elle opportune?

OBJECTIVE: To test the possible link between first investigation and development of spastic diplegia. METHOD: A long-term retrospective study was carried out in the Neonatal Medicine Department of Arras Hospital, the C.A.M.S.P. of that town and with corresponding therapists. RESULTS: The study undertaken from January 1, 1991, to December 31, 1997, involved 56 children suspected of developing spastic diplegia and requiring a specialized course of treatment during the evolution of disease. In 32, evolution of disease was favourable, and in 24 spastic diplegia developed. An unfavourable evolution was significantly associated with late intervention of rehabilitation. CONCLUSION: Although few pre- or neonatal factors differentiated the two groups of children in their opposite evolution, haemorrhage during pregnancy and early detection seem to be determining factors in spastic diplegia.

[Ureaplasma urealyticum respiratory infection in newborn infants]. / Infections respiratoires à Ureaplasma urealyticum chez le nouveau-né.

UNLABELLED: The neonatal respiratory infection by Ureaplasma urealyticum is rare, but it could represent a major risk for the newborn infants. CASE REPORTS: A term newborn infant presented an early respiratory distress with persistent pulmonary hypertension, requiring artificial ventilation and inhaled nitric oxide therapy. Tracheal aspirates were positive for Ureaplasma urealyticum, although his mother was not contamined. A preterm newborn infant (gestational age: 33 weeks) presented a severe respiratory distress, requiring mechanical ventilation. The tracheal aspirates we positive for Ureaplasma urealyticum, as well as his mother's cervico-vaginal swab. Both recovered thanks to antibiotics (intravenous macrolid during ten days). The outcome was favorable for both babies. CONCLUSION: Neonatal infection due to Ureaplasma is serious. The clinical diagnosis is difficult, recalling group B streptococcal infection. Clinical aggravation, despite antibiotics associated with negative bacteriological standard detection, leads one to evoke this diagnosis and perform specific bacteriological cultures.