Human Milk: Composition, Clinical Benefits and Future Opportunities. Группа авторов

Чтение книги онлайн.

Fig. 5. This figure shows the progression of a peristaltic wave from left (anterior) to right (posterior), across nine consecutive frames.

The same authors used a second analytical technique involving automated mapping of the contour of the surface of the tongue. This technique is capable of showing the progression, across successive frames, of a peristaltic wave from the anterior to posterior of the oral cavity. In Figure 5, the peristaltic wave is seen rising in amplitude, then declining, as it transitions (left to right) from the front to the back of the oral cavity.

One final piece of evidence supplied by this latter technique is that when an ETD is generated, the space created is generated as part of the standard peristaltic wave, as it progresses across the zone where the ETD appears; it is both opened at its leading edge initially, then closed off again from its anterior edge (Fig. 6).

      The two pictures show the contour of the dorsum of the tongue, which is automatically tracked (using the purpose-built software); the tongue outline is compressed left to right in this figure. The dotted line shows the tongue’s outline in the current frame, while the continuous line shows that in the previous frame. The circle circumscribes the mid-section of the baby’s tongue where the ETD is generated.

      The upper picture shows the precise moment the ETD starts to be generated, as the continuous line shows an absence of any indentation, while the dotted line peels away markedly to create an indentation (marked with an X), representing the start of the formation of an ETD “pocket.” In the lower picture, just four frames later, the ETD “pocket” is clear in the continuous line, and it is just starting to be closed off again, from the front (marked with a Y). This is the clearest evidence to date that added suction elements (ETDs) are created by the same core peristaltic process.

Fig. 6. This figure shows a localized added suck or extractive tongue depression, which is created from the front backwards. Four frames later, it is closed off again from the front backwards.

Returning to the most recent engineering-based study, Mortazavi et al. [21] created a complex model of the milk duct system of the breast, which they then combined with directly measured suction pressure data (Fig. 7) (from several babies), to define the parameter boundaries of the mathematical model. Modelled milk output was then compared with clinical data on milk transfer for a single baby.

Fig. 7. Phases of natural suckling (by 1 infant) transformed to a sequence of standardized sinusoidal waveforms (see inset). From Mortazavi et al. [21].

      No data were collected on positive stripping pressure, so axiomatically, any such element was excluded from the model, despite it being an explicit component of one of the key studies they cited [19]. Any theoretical model which only assumes that the baby behaves like a mechanical suction pump is likely either to verify that presumption [20], or find that it is inadequate to explain clinical data on milk transfer [21].

In order to use sucking data in their model as parameter boundaries, sucking profiles were transformed into single harmonic, sinusoidal waveforms, seemingly all with a periodic frequency approaching 1 Hz (1 suck/s) (Fig. 8). The need to simplify natural data for incorporation into their model was no doubt necessary, but this constrains the baby’s sucking pattern to even more closely resemble an electric breast pump.

      Their theoretical model simulated milk transfer by one baby, which was then compared with clinical data on intake by that baby. Based on this, the authors were forced to conclude that either sucking pressure alone, or total feed duration, did not account for: (a) the volume of milk removed, (b) the flow rate per unit time, or (c) the flow rate per suck.

This finding is unsurprising as it agrees with that of an earlier detailed study of the parameters of sucking pressure during breastfeeding [23], which was unable to find any association between suction and the 58% difference in intake between the first and second breast. Additionally, several authors have shown an inverse relationship between sucking pressure and milk flow during bottle-feeds: the greater the resistance to milk flow caused by teat hole size, the greater the pressure exerted by the baby to remove milk [15].

Fig. 8. A selection of pressure profiles enlarged from Figure 7. The rate of nutritive sucking for all profiles is 0.92 sucks/s; the non-nutritive rate is not statistically different at 0.95 sucks/s.

A range of other factors are believed to explain the difference in milk intake between the first and second breast, including the “mother’s physiological response to sucking” [21], although no consideration appears to have been given to the fact that satiation by the baby can most commonly be observed when feeding from the second breast [24], and/or that less milk is available from the second breast as a result of the tendency to start breastfeeds on the breast offered last at the previous feed.

      Both of the engineering-based theoretical models discussed above [20, 21] projected milk flow to be 1.85–3 times greater than measured intake by the baby, despite using many fewer branching ductal milk lobes than are naturally found in the lactating breast (the 5-lobe model [21] produced less of a discrepancy than the 2-lobe model [20]). Seeking to explain why milk flow was slower in reality, Mortazavi et al. [21] concluded that resistance to milk flow was greater than predicted in their model. They concluded this was likely to СКАЧАТЬ