Re: How many standard deviations?

[Guest guest]

Yeah, I'd say that's a severe case. I think my son's initial standard deviation

was 5.2% and his cephalic index was 100%--considered severe.

After 6 weeks in his 1st DOC Band he went to 92.2% (standard deviation of 3.7).

That was on 2/4/09--I don't know where he is now. I'm just hoping for a cephalic

index in the mid 80s when he's done. He's 7.5 months old now and has been in

his 2nd DOC Band for almost 4 weeks.

>

> We had the dsi done yesterday at CT. I asked how bad Devin's case was. She

told me it was 4.7 standard deviations or about 97%. It just made me wonder

where everyone else started. I was also told that his is a severe case...

really?

>

[Guest guest]

A lot has already been said on this, but I want to add a thought I've had. It

seems that there are at least two separate issues here.

The one everyone has been talking about is the distribution of C.I.s in the

population, or at least the population of children, today. Where your child

falls in there will affect how he looks in relation to others. What looks like

a wide head to most of us will definitely not look so bad to your child's peers,

as they are part of a population that definitely will have a higher C.I. on

average than ours. Like the rest of you, I study heads like crazy trying to get

some kind of objective idea of how my son (last measured at 89%, too old to

band) will look. I think in the 80s and probably low 90's no one will think is

too wide-looking.

Another issue, though, is whether there are actually health risks to an

unnaturally high C.I. (unnaturally meaning cause by external forces) Can't

flattening in the back affect the jaw, for example? I think there is a

correlation between overbites/underbites and brachy. My son got a lot of ear

infections during his first year and I wondered if his plagio was partly to

blame for crowding his tubes.

As an analogy, a lot of kids these days are overweight, so someone just a bit

chubby will not be so noticeable as he might have thirty years ago. However, it

is still a health problem.

My guess, based on my own son and stories from here, is that a C.I. down into

the 80's is low enough so there will not likely be complications. But I do

think everyone should push their orthotists to make low to mid 80's a goal. I

did not do this and really regret it!!!!!

Going back to the cosmetic issue, though, the C.I. is just a single measurement

that does not tell the whole story. Our orthotist refused to admit that my son

had brachy because his head was not flat (even at C.I. 94%). It's just kind of

wide. It really depends how it all comes together. I have seen pictures of

's daughter (take a look!) who has a C.I. of around 90% and she looks

completely normal even to my picky eyes.

I will post again about a different topic--regression, good news and bad.

wrote:

>

> We had the dsi done yesterday at CT. I asked how bad Devin's case was. She

told me it was 4.7 standard deviations or about 97%. It just made me wonder

where everyone else started. I was also told that his is a severe case...

really?

>

[Guest guest]

Yes, I've noticed is it is possible for a fairly low CI, and yet there

still to be a significant flat spot. There is a boy in 's daycare

class with a long head, not too wide, yet in the back there is a

significantly big flat area. His C.I. looks no worse than 's, so

it must be in the low 80's. This child's head looks symmetrical and I

would never band this child, but he definitely has a significant flat

spot from back sleeping.

-Kathy

R wrote:

A lot has already been said on this, but I want to add a thought I've

had. It seems that there are at least two separate issues here.

The one everyone has been talking about is the distribution of C.I.s in

the population, or at least the population of children, today. Where

your child falls in there will affect how he looks in relation to

others. What looks like a wide head to most of us will definitely not

look so bad to your child's peers, as they are part of a population

that definitely will have a higher C.I. on average than ours. Like the

rest of you, I study heads like crazy trying to get some kind of

objective idea of how my son (last measured at 89%, too old to band)

will look. I think in the 80s and probably low 90's no one will think

is too wide-looking.

Another issue, though, is whether there are actually health risks to an

unnaturally high C.I. (unnaturally meaning cause by external forces)

Can't flattening in the back affect the jaw, for example? I think there

is a correlation between overbites/underbites and brachy. My son

got a lot of ear infections during his first year and I wondered if his

plagio was partly to blame for crowding his tubes.

As an analogy, a lot of kids these days are overweight, so someone just

a bit chubby will not be so noticeable as he might have thirty years

ago. However, it is still a health problem.

My guess, based on my own son and stories from here, is that a C.I.

down into the 80's is low enough so there will not likely be

complications. But I do think everyone should push their orthotists to

make low to mid 80's a goal. I did not do this and really regret it!!!!!

Going back to the cosmetic issue, though, the C.I. is just a single

measurement that does not tell the whole story. Our orthotist refused

to admit that my son had brachy because his head was not flat (even at

C.I. 94%). It's just kind of wide. It really depends how it all comes

together. I have seen pictures of 's daughter (take a look!) who

has a C.I. of around 90% and she looks completely normal even to my

picky eyes.

I will post again about a different topic--regression, good news and

bad.

wrote:

>

> We had the dsi done yesterday at CT. I asked how bad Devin's case

was. She told me it was 4.7 standard deviations or about 97%. It just

made me wonder where everyone else started. I was also told that his is

a severe case... really?

>