Should I use adjusted age?

Hi girls,

I'm confused because my babies were born at 36 weeks (6lb each; no NICU time) and our pedi adjusts them from 40 weeks due date so 4 weeks. Well, if full-term is 37 weeks then, shouldn't they be adjusted only 1 week or none at all?

At 4 months they were 19lb and 17lb, not so small either.

:unknw:

 

I would use it if you need it. I would adjust for sleep milestones and the smile might take a little longer, but I dont think 4 weeks will make a huge difference as the months start to pile up. But if they are delayed on a milestone, you can technically give them 4 more weeks to meet the goal.

 

I agree with the above...

I do know that some doctors do not use adjusted age for babies born at 36 weeks and later, but others do.

Also...40 weeks is considered term by our doctor, so as you can see...different doctors seem to have different views. Our doctor would have let DW go to 40 weeks if everything was good.

 

Mine were born at 36.5 weeks. Our pedi. does adjust. It says "premature infant" on all of their medical records. I wonder how long that "label" will be on their charts - until they are teenagers?! I don't really adjust their age any more. DD is right on track. DS is a little behind on gross motor skills, but I don't necessarily attribute that to being premature.

 

All record say preemie on mine but my dr is not adjusting their age due to their doing things so far one time as well as weight, etc. Mine were 34 weekers

 

I agree with DATJMom. It's not neccessary but it can be helpful to use it if you are worried about something. My boys were 33 weekers and the pedi used adjusted age (based on 40 weeks) for milestones and starting solids.

 

I *think* SOP is to adjust for the first two years of life. That said, babies vary SO much in reaching milestones, size, etc., that the 4 wks really doesn't make much difference in the general scheme of things. Mine were 35.5 and have reached all of their milestones pretty much on time for full term babies. I did take their adjusted age into consideration for startings solids but that's about it.

Funny, I watched those milestone timelines like a hawk w/ my firstborn, but with the twins I barely give them a thought. ardon:

Eve

 

As Rachel said, you can use the adjustment if they seem behind on something, but it's not necessary.

My oldest and the twins were all born at 36 wks and I've never worried about adjusting for them. Now, my oldest son didn't roll until 5.5 months old, which is later, but my oldest dd (born at 39 wks) didn't roll until much later than that!! But she was born at 9lbs 12 oz and so all her physical milestones were met much later than my son (who was 5 lbs 13 oz.).

 

We are in the exact same situation. I only age adjust for milestones. My guys are almost six months in about a week but they are not quite to their six month milestones, getting close. They are meeting their 5 month milestones just fine. Some babies are way ahead of the game and so some of the 36 weekers can keep pace with their 40 week counterparts just fine. Hope this helps.

 

our pedi didn't (born right at 36w) except for transitioning to cow's milk...he recommended formula till 13 mos because of their low birth weight

 

The official terminology is that 34-37 weeks is considered "late pre-term." This is because although most babies born at this gestation stay in the normal nursery and have "normal" weights, they can be a little slow with feeding and are still at higher risk for some of the typical preemie issues (reflux, jaundice, respiratory problems with a viral illness, etc) Mine were born at 37 weeks so technically term but I even noticed especially with my smaller one that it took them longer to achieve mature sleep habits, napping, etc. Also, DD has been a little slow on the uptake with solid foods and that may have something to do with maturity as well. I wouldn't worry about them adjusting age unless they make a big deal about it. Your ped is probably just trying to give your babies all the time they need to achieve milestones and that extra 4 weeks can make a big difference when it comes to certain milestones.

 

mine were born at 35w 4d so nearly 36wks but agree with pp that it can depend. We have some friends with ID twin girls born at 35wks and they were meeting milestones way eariler then my girls. My girls tend to meet their milestones a the end of the range and using adjustment. When talking to my pedi regarding meeting milestones, since they tend to lag behind she counts it 5 wks back.

 

I totally agree with Rachel!

 

I agree with the above. The one thing I'd like to point out bec it caused issues for us is to make sure you know whether your doctor is adjusting or not on charts. Our pedi did not adjust for charting but for one appointment she had a training doctor with her who did the charts. I didn't pay much attention and everything looked great - my little one jumped up on her weight gain curve. However, the next month she fell back down which caused some worry. We later worked out that she hadn't really fallen much off her curve, but bec the training doctor had adjusted and our pedi did not, it made her curve skewed.

We did adjust for solids and cows milk and vaccines.

 

Mine were also born at 36 weeks, and we never adjusted. In fact, when we were trying to get Jon to qualify for speech, I requested that they not adjust (their ped never did), and it made him closer to qualifying for services than he would have been had we used an adjusted age.

 

My twins were born at 36 wks and the pedi doesn't adjust for their age. She did say that if they are missing their milestones we could give them the extra month, but so far, it's not been an issue.

 

Each baby and mother is an individual. If your children were born with no issues, maybe they were born because they were ready? If they were ready to be born, then why adjust their age? If they are behind in any areas, then remembering that they were born early and adjusting the age is useful. If they are not behind in any areas, then how is it of use?