The Apert Syndrome DMI Case Report, Explained

Every page on this site says the same thing about the evidence: no controlled study of DMI has been published. This post covers the other half of that picture, the one peer-reviewed case report, from March 2026 in the journal Pathophysiology: one girl with Apert syndrome, intensive DMI over eight months, and her gross motor skills measured before and after with a standard research tool.

What this case report is

A case report is the form research takes when a new therapy has its first measured results: a detailed description of what happened for one patient. It is not a trial. The paper, "Early Motor Development and Rehabilitation Outcomes in Apert Syndrome: Gross Motor Function Measures, Case Report," was written by Lorena Oreščanin of the Physio Kids Centre in Zagreb, with Zrinka Biloglav and Ivana Škrlec. None of the authors is DMI's co-founder, and the DMI organization did not conduct the work.

The child was a girl, referred at 16 months for an intensive rehabilitation program: an intensive physiotherapy program using Dynamic Movement Intervention (DMI), delivered in monthly cycles over eight months, with motor function measured again at 24 months.

What Apert syndrome is

Apert syndrome is a genetic condition that changes how bones grow before birth. A change in the FGFR2 gene, usually a new mutation neither parent carries, causes premature fusion of the skull's sutures (craniosynostosis), slowed growth of the middle of the face, and fused fingers and toes (syndactyly), per the NIH's MedlinePlus Genetics guide. The case report itself notes that Apert syndrome can considerably affect motor development, and that care calls for a coordinated team, including craniofacial and limb surgery, physiotherapy, speech therapy, and psychological support.

The diagnosis matters for how you read this report: the gains happened on top of whatever else her medical care involved, and a single case cannot separate the DMI sessions from the rest of her life.

What the study did

The outcome measure was the Gross Motor Function Measure (GMFM-88), covered in this site's GMFM-88 explainer. It was scored at the start, when the girl was 16 months old, and again at 24 months, eight months after the initial evaluation.

The schedule was ten consecutive days of DMI each month, 45 minutes a day, from April to December 2025, at a specialized center with her parents present. Each exercise was repeated five times per series, and support was reduced as she progressed. Her parents were trained to carry activities over at home, and because the family lived in another county, they took unpaid leave to stay near the center for each cycle.

What it found

Her total GMFM-88 score rose from 29.00% to 68.68%, which the paper reports as a relative improvement of 136.83%. In the authors' words, "the most considerable progress was observed in sitting, crawling, and kneeling, with initial improvements in standing." By 24 months, the paper reports, she moved between lying, sitting, and standing on her own, crawled with alternating arms and legs as her main way of getting around, held a kneeling position during play without help, and stood with minimal support. Standing is now the focus of her therapy. On lying and rolling, her score went from a raw 47 out of 51 (92.16%) to 51 out of 51 (100.00%).

The authors compare the gains with positive outcomes in other published case studies of children with rare genetic syndromes: the language of observation, not controlled testing, and the report makes no statistical claims.

What it does not tell you

• One child. Nothing in a single case can tell you what will happen for another child, even one with the same diagnosis.
• No comparison group. With no similar children who did not get DMI, there is no way to know whether DMI, the intensive schedule, the rest of her care, or simply growing older over eight months explains the change. The authors say some of the gain may reflect natural motor development between 16 and 24 months, while arguing that the level she reached suggests development alone does not explain it. With one child and no comparison group, the report cannot settle that question.
• No statistics. With one participant there is nothing to test.
• No generalization. Apert syndrome is one rare condition, and DMI's registered trials study children with spastic diplegic cerebral palsy instead.

The wider picture stands where this site describes it: no controlled study of DMI has been published. Two randomized trials are registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, one comparing DMI with the Bobath approach that completed in June 2026 and one at Cairo University, and neither has posted results. A missing controlled study is not evidence DMI does not work; it is evidence the question is still open.

What it means for your child

Read this report as what it is: one family's child, measured, documented, and published in a peer-reviewed journal. That is unusual right now, when most of what circulates about DMI is practitioner and family description. If your child has a genetic syndrome, a motor delay, or cerebral palsy, it is one more documented reason DMI is worth asking about, especially when conventional therapy has not produced progress.

It is not a guarantee, and the honest sentence is written into the study itself: one child, no comparison group. This child is not from the population the registered trials study either, so a general answer cannot grow from a child like hers. If a clinic quotes the report as proof DMI works, the accurate response is simple: a single case, no comparison group, no controlled study yet. That is not dismissing the report; it is describing it correctly.

What to ask

• Ask how progress will be measured before DMI starts. This case report was useful because it measured with the GMFM-88 at the start and again eight months later; ask whether a standardized measure is the plan, and when.
• Ask what change the therapist expects, and by when, tied to a milestone you can see: sitting, crawling, kneeling, standing, walking.
• If your child has a diagnosed syndrome, ask how the therapist coordinates with the specialists who follow your child before an intensive is scheduled.
• Ask about the schedule and the reasoning: the report used monthly cycles; what is proposed for your child, and why that volume?
• Ask what would tell you it is not working, and what the plan is then.

Where it appears on this site

This report is the measured result this site points to again and again. The What is DMI? guide presents it as the one published outcome report; the DMI therapy guide summarizes it in its evidence section; the prematurity guide cites it as the only DMI outcome report in a peer-reviewed journal; the GMFM-88 explainer covers the measure it used; and why DMI is not in the evidence reviews puts the whole picture in context.

Sources

• Oreščanin L, Biloglav Z, Škrlec I. Early Motor Development and Rehabilitation Outcomes in Apert Syndrome: Gross Motor Function Measures-Case Report. Pathophysiology. 2026;33(1):23. Full text on PubMed Central and PubMed record
• Apert syndrome. MedlinePlus Genetics, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health. medlineplus.gov
• ClinicalTrials.gov, National Library of Medicine. NCT07238634, Effects of DMI vs Bobath on Neuromuscular Development in CP. clinicaltrials.gov
• ClinicalTrials.gov, National Library of Medicine. NCT06270550, Role of Dynamic Movement Intervention in Children with Spastic Diplegia. clinicaltrials.gov