Re: Cephalic Index Question Answered by CT's Tim Littlefield

[Guest guest]

I'm sorry, I mis-spoke when I said studies, I should have said that he has

written quite a few reports/presentations and is familiar with many studies that

have been done. I can't remember if he or CT has conducted any studies

themselves, I could double check that.

I think looks fantastic, really. I can't even imagine how you could have

gotten 10% more improvement to get into the high 70s even if she had been banded

younger. It does seem like an unattainable goal in many instances. So we do have

to be careful how we present those numbers. But the problem still remains if

those are the numbers insurance companies are going by (though I suppose they

would be scewed in the parents' favor since on paper at least, the brachy could

appear more severe than it really is and maybe insurance coverage would be

granted easily?).

I'll work on finding that original study for you.

Jake-3.5 (DOCBand Grad 9/08)

> > >

> > > ,

> > > I really appreciate you posting this interesting response from Mr.

Littlefield. My first reaction was that he is saying some of what I did in a

post last week: namely, that what is common or even average is not necessarily

healthy. (I gave obesity as an example.)

> > >

> > > On the other hand, let us keep in mind that Mr. Littlefield can hardly be

considered objective since he works for a company that profits from orthotic

molding devices.

> > >

> > > One more comment: 1 in 30 or 1 in 60 is a plenty high fraction of the

population, in my opinion!

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > > > Hi ,

> > > >

> > > > Carol forwarded your email to my attention to see if I could answer your

question about cephalic index. It is an excellent question and one that I know a

lot of people struggle with.

> > > >

> > > > The values we use for cephalic index come from some very well controlled

anthropometric studies that were performed a few decades ago. They are the most

accurate we have ever found. They were performed by expert anthropologists who

had been formally trained in the measurement of human form, and they are still

the gold standard used in most clinical research studies worldwide.

> > > >

> > > > As you indicated, sometimes these numbers seem `outdated' because we see

so many children with cephalic indices that are so much greater than the mean of

79%. However, there are a couple of things to consider. First, is that many of

the children you deal with on the boards, as well as what we see here, do in

fact have deformational brachycephaly and their heads are in fact many standard

deviations above the norm (often having CI's in the 90's or higher). This does

not mean the norms should be adjusted so these don't appear so bad. From a

purely functional and anatomical perspective, any infant who has a cranial width

that is approaching their cranial length will likely have many other issues as

well (increased posterior head height, shortened skull base distance behind the

foramen magnum, possible malocclusion etc) not to mention will have difficulty

wearing protective head gear which is designed around the normal values.

> > > >

> > > > The second point is really the same as the first †" we have to

remember that the infants we see on a daily basis do not represent the normal

population (we see what 1 in 60, 1 in 30 infants?). To really understand whether

the normal values need to be adjusted because of back sleeping, a new

anthropometric study looking only at infants without any kind of deformational

plagiocephaly or brachycephaly would need to be completed. Unfortunately, I do

not see that happening any time in the near future, although I do think it would

be very interesting to see what impact supine sleeping has had on our heads.

> > > >

> > > > If you would like to share this information, or if you would rather have

me answer questions directly on the board, it is fine with me.

> > > >

> > > > Thanks

> > > >

> > > > Tim

> > > >

> > > > P.S. To answer your other question †" the numbers we use are

probably what Molly has, and this is also what the insurance companies use as

well.

> > > >

> > > > Tim Littlefield, MS

> > > > Vice President

> > > > Cranial Technologies, Inc.

> > > > 480-403-6332

> > > > www.CranialTech.com

> > > >

> > >

> >

>