- Pregnancy
- Baby & Toddler
- Parents
- Getting Pregnant
- Baby Names
- Product Reviews
-
Registry
- Community
-
More
Want a personalized experience?
Download the free app
Multiples
When are twins really full term?
Im so confused on when im suppose to be due. Dr says 35 weeks is full term for twins which puts me at the end of April, but regular full term at 40 weeks puts me at end of May. Basically he just said be ready any time in May. Wondering for those of you who already have twins, how many weeks did you go? i dont know to realistically what to plan for.
I know im low risk for pre term based on my cervix length...4.9 at 27 weeks, no GD, and blood pressure has been great. no complications to date...
This discussion has been closed.
Re: When are twins really full term?
37 weeks like every other baby.
due dates are 40 weeks, and I think that's average delivery for a singleton. Twins average 35-36w.
"Full term" means they can be born -- but most docs prefer they stay in until 38 or 39 weeks. I haven't heard of a doctor actually changing the due date, as that can make measurements off by weeks.
From what I've read in my case, a good number of mono-di twins are born on their own (at good weights w/ good lungs) between 36 and 37 weeks, so I've been saying they're coming in a few weeks, but my docs and I keep my due date at 40 weeks.
This exactly.
i dont know, i dont really get it either. i feel like the MFMs/OBs say 35/36 bc that's when the uterus and placentas can start crapping out? as opposed to 40-41 weeks with a singleton? and the average twin pregancy comes at 36 weeks so that's "term"?
i mean twins dont have super human growth skills....they dont mature any faster than a singleton. so imo it's just the body crapping out bc it's just done carrying 2 babies. just my opinion of course, no evidence to back this thinking up!
My doctors don't actually change my due date, which is for 40 weeks. But he's scheduling my C-section for 38 weeks (baby B is transverse).
I usually just tell people "I'm technically due May 11, but we expect them sometime in April" because it's too complicated to explain the whole thing to every person that asks me.
At the beginning of my pregnancy they explained it to me this way:
28 weeks is 90% survival rate
30-32 weeks are less likely for long term health problems
34+ weeks and their lungs are developed enough for minimal health concerns
38 weeks they will induce/schedule C-section
ID Twin girls 04/2012
Baby #3 Due Jan. 2017
This is not true. Since a twin pregnancy is a "stressful" environment for a fetus, they do mature a bit faster than singletons. Average delivery is around 36 weeks, more because the body thinks it's term, rather than the babies' growth though.
Full term is 37-40 weeks for any baby. Your Dr. is probably just saying it's more likely for them to show up closer to 35 weeks, because uterine conditions tend to deteriorate faster with more than one in there.
My Dr. told me he is aiming for 39 weeks, and will be happy to induce me at that point. My personal goal is 37 weeks because I remember seeing the calcification in DS1's placenta and I know that is a very real possibility. Plus I had amnio-level issues and had to be induced with DS1 at 38 weeks anyway, so I don't have a lot of faith in my body making it all the way....
BUT, my goal is to keep them in as long as humanly possible up until the 40 week mark.
exactly this.
My OB will schedule c-sections between 37 and 38 weeks and inductions shortly after 39 weeks.
Gringa's right, and I'm pretty sure there are studies that twins born early tend to do better/get healthy faster than singletons born at the same time. (Please note this is not an absolute statement)
Which I just think is so friggin cool. They're prepping to be born earlier, which as Gringa said is due to mom's stress, not baby's full readiness.
that is really cool....i had no idea....makes me feel a little better actually!
Yep! ACOG says 37w but the WHO actually considers 38w full-term.
And as for whether twins mature faster than singletons, I have heard both that they do and that they don't; I think the research may be mixed on that. My understanding is that the more recent research shows that's not the case but if anyone has links from reliable sources I'd be interested to see!
This.
FWIW, this is the second or third time in recent weeks that I've seen someone post that their doctor said 35w was full term for twins - what is that about? I NEVER heard that before.
Yeah, I know what you mean. 35w is still early. To me, it seems like drs who say that are using the term loosely, like to mean "average gestation for twins" rather than the true definition of "full-term." I think they shouldn't do that though since as we see from the OP, it confuses people!
Oh and I realized I missed a question in the OP. I made it to my scheduled induction at 37w6d.
ive never heard this before either until this thread. my MFM never said anything about it....
this is exactly what i thougth as well. that's what i meant when i said that twins dont have "super human growth skills"!! idk, would love to see the research on this one way or other, even if there are conflicting research articles, would be interesting to read about.
Search pubmed for twins and you come up with interesting info. There is zero litertature on the absolute "full term" definition in twins. Can't even find it for singletons because as stated above ACOG and WHO can't even agree.
Here's one abstract:
We compare 4 short-term outcomes--namely admission to special care nursery (SCN), length of stay (LOS), age at full feeds (AFF) and respiratory morbidity/need for ventilation--in 1015 late preterm singletons and 366 twins and triplets born at our institution over a 4-year period. Birth weight (BW) and gestational age (GA) rather than plurality of birth determined need for admission to SCN, LOS, AFF, and need for respiratory support. When matched for GA, compared to singletons, twins and triplets needed less admission to SCN and respiratory support at 36 weeks, whereas at 34 weeks, they had longer LOS and took longer to get to full feeds. We conclude that the outcomes of interest are affected by GA and BW rather than plurality.
Agreed. I was due Sept 29th and just told people they would probably come by early September. My OB intially said expect around 36 weeks and then it was just praying to get any where past viability.
Peanut Butter and Jelly!
<a href="http://s568.photobucket.com/albums/ss122/AliceNP/?action=view
thanks everyone...good info. guess ill just keep planning on "sometime in May". I get tired of all the questions though, especially from my family saying they dont understand why id deliver early if my due date is set at 40 weeks. so tired of explaining and having them tell me i dont know what im talking about. not like any of them had twins...sheesh.
now im worried cuz my shower is at the 33 week mark!
When I asked about showers on here way back when, most people recommended having them by 28-30w when you're still feeling OK and still have some energy after the shower to finish buying what you still need, organize everything, etc. 33w should still be OK though. (I had two showers, they were around 28w and 30w.) I would've been less comfortable by then for sure but still doable. Hope all goes well for you!