Adjusted age or no for your twins?

rac717 · October 2013

Em and Max were born at 34 weeks, 4 days. When I was at the ped last time, we were talking about adjusted age and she doesn't take it into account at all for them. Her thought is that 37 weeks is normal for twins and they were only 2 weeks earlier than that so it's a non-factor. To me, they arrived 5 weeks early so it seems crazy to compare their weight/height development to full-term single babies.

Anyway, just curious whether other people's doctors take adjusted age into account or not?

JordynLeighx3 · October 2013

Our twins were born at 35w6d and our pedi doesn't configure their adjusted age because they are considered late term preemie. For height and weight, they're compared to every other kid their age but when it comes to reaching simple milestones, our pedi goes by their adjusted age.
Though our girls were born at 5.10 and 5.13 so even now at 7 months old they're more the size of a 9 month old. They're currently 28in long and 22lbs lol hard to believe they were ever 5lb preemies!

chickaboo1974 · October 2013

My guys were delivered at 34w3d. Our Pedi (who has a background in neonatology) always used their adjusted age- for milestones- but would map their curve on both the preemie charts and the full term charts in terms of height and weight.

My guys quickly caught up with weight and height (they were 5lb3oz and 5lb4oz at birth) and they met milestones more closely with their actual age.

mylittleladies1229 · October 2013

What's you babies actual age now? My girls were born 30w2d and the doctor said we were going to stop treating them like preemies around 3 months! I kind of took that with a grain of salt, but they were caught up in the growth department around 6 months.

rac717 · October 2013

They're 6 months as of today

They are pretty much on target for the developmental stuff but Em is below the 10th percentile in terms of height/weight for 6 month old babies. Neither the doctor nor I are concerned, she gains/grows consistently. It was just interesting to me that she (doc) didn't look at their adjusted age when tracking their height/weight.

Missa_g · October 2013

Adjusted age should be considered for all babies born prior to 37w, multiples or not. That's not to say it necessarily matters, but for milestones it is important to keep in mind. All babies develop in their own time but their milestones might be closer to their adjusted age. Or they might not.

LegallyBlonde217 · October 2013

Our pedi uses their adjusted age for all milestones. They were born at 33w4d.

megs2011 · October 2013

Mine were born at 34+4 too. My Pedi goes by adjusted age. I think as long as they are gaining/growing, everything is good. They are hitting all their milestones at or before their actual age and definitely for their adjusted age. My kidlets are still little peanuts at a year old (just over 16lbs and 27") and their pedi hasn't shown concern.

Mrs. Alice · October 2013

Our pedi always adjusted age for my twins the first 2 years. It was very significant for them because they were born at 28 weeks. My sister's twins were born at 36 weeks and they didn't adjust age. Even though twins rarely make it to 40 weeks it doesn't mean that they are any more developed than a singleton at the same gestation, so I think your pedi's logic is silly.

SLPMel · October 2013

As a speech pathologist, we adjust for prematurity up until 2 for speech and language skills. My two were born at 35 weeks, so we adjusted for it when we did DS's speech therapy evaluation at 18 months.

Scorpgirl444 · October 2013

Mine were born at 35w5d. They were born at 4lb14oz and 5lb5oz. I don't remember their lengths right now. They are both still on the short side. They were always given the regular growth chart which kinda annoyed me. Ashleigh's head circumference was at 0% range for so long because of how small she was compared to other babies her age. She didn't even get on the chart for that until her 6 month appt and even then it was less than 1%.

Anthony has always been on the higher side for his weight to his own height but to other babies his age has been on the lower side.

Ashleigh has just always been on the lower side.

I can't wait to see where they are in 4 weeks at their next appt!

Arnden · October 2013

My girls were born at 33w0d and my pedi never used adjusted ages. They are on par developmentally and growing consistently, but never over the 10th percentile even at their 18th month appointment. They have been doing a lot of growing since then and it will be interesting to see if they have actually caught up at their 2 year old checkup next month. I was told they would be all caught up by age two so I am thinking they might just be small people.

Northof54 · October 2013

My girls were 33.6 weeks. Nobody ever used an adjusted age.

LottaLattes · October 2013

Mine don't count here but if your LO is tracking a curve it doesn't necessarily matter. Mine were 38 weekers and one is in the 5-10 percentile, as well. Adjusted age would matter more in terms of development, such as rolling over or sitting up (though even that varies greatly between all kids).

rac717 · October 2013

So interesting - thanks all. Seems like every doc tracks it a bit differently!

staceymack · October 2013

My girls were born at 33+4. Because they're gaining so well she uses their actual age and compares to term babies. For development she said we will use their actual age unless we see a delay. Then, we will consider their adjusted age.

Want a personalized experience?

Adjusted age or no for your twins?

Re: Adjusted age or no for your twins?

Choose Another Board

Search Boards