Adjusted age

If your twins were born only a few weeks early, did you notice that they did things (milestones, sleep, etc) based on their actual age or adjusted age? My twins were born at 37 weeks and the hospital called them late term preemies. They were good sizes for twins, though small compared to a full term singleton. I think they called them late term preemies since E had some sucking issues and couldn't latch on to BF. Anyway, it seems like they've following sleeping patterns more with their adjusted age compared to their actual age. I just noticed this week that it seems like their going through their 6 month growth spurt, just at 6 1/2 months instead of 6 months. It made me wonder if it was just a fluke or due to being born a few weeks early.

It's nothing that I'm concerned about- I'm just curious to hear about other's experiences.

 

Mine were born at 35w 1d and I definitely noticed that they seemed to follow milestones - especially with sleeping and nursing/eating/food - with their adjusted age versus their actual age. Every week matters!

 

My boys were born at 37 weeks. Our docs said they considered them full term, even though they were technically three weeks early. Their milestones and development have all been right on with their actual age. They were 6lbs and 5lbs, 4oz. at birth.

 

My girls were born at 38w3d...I was pregnant longer then several of my friend who had singletons and my girls were bigger than many of my friends babies too, lol, so I haven't noticed a difference at all. They have been ahead of my son (who was born at 41w6d) or some things and behind on others...I think every baby is different and I'm sure when they are born affects some more than others.

The book "Healthy Sleep Habits, Happy Twins" does say to look at everything in terms of 'due date' and not 'birth date' regardless of how early or on time they were so in the authors opinion every extra day in-utero is important.

 

My boys were born at 38 weeks exact and we did no adjusting. But I agree with Jori-every day/week counts!

 

Definitely for sleep, not so much for milestones.

 

Mine were born @ 35 weeks and 6 days and I think that until they were about 5 months or so it seemed that they lagged behind just a bit. It took them several weeks just to regulate their own body temperatures, so I know other stuff was behind as well.

 

Our girls came out at 37 weeks exact (Joanna: 4 days after yours) @ 5lbs 15oz and 6lbs 5oz (our Drs considered them full term, even though one had to stay in NICU for 1 week). One girl has been reaching the milestones on the dot, and the other seems a little lag behind - about 3 weeks.

 

mine were at 36w and neither the pedi nor the hospital adjusted their ages...their milestones were pretty much on target for their actual age...

 

We were just over three weeks early and I think it made a huge difference for sleep and milk intake. The full-term babies that I know were way ahead of mine in those two categories but other than that and their size, you would never know mine were early.

 

Mine were 32w1d. I would say they are behind about milk intake. they sleep a lot. Even at 9 months, they still have 3 naps/day. I don't know if its because of being born premature or not. About milestones, they always on targets. Speech and mental developments, they are even ahead of 9 months.