To still correct for dd's prematurity?

[Skatingonthinice16]

She's one next week and was almost 7 weeks early. When she was born the HV said they'd correct her for prematurity until she was 2, so she's actually near to ten months than twelve.

However she's doing as much as most other babies her age I think - she crawled at 8 months (6 corrected), then pulled to stand and started cruising at about nine months and now she walks with her walker and stands on her own although doesn't yet walk unaided. She's pointing / waving / clapping / doing actions to songs, has a few words but her understanding is excellent. She can point to things in her books when asked and can follow instructions like fetch your ball and bring it to me. So she's pretty well bang on.
I just wonder - and I know it doesn't matter really - but if she's been born when she should have been would she have been doing this stuff at her corrected age? Do would she have crawled st six months, cruised at 7 months, waved etc at 8 months or would she not be doing some of the stuff she is now? Dh says I should stop correcting her for prematurity but I don't know because could it still affect her later? Like at school? Is she average for her chronological age but behind for where she would have been if she was geststionslly 12 months? I will never know if it's held her back I suppose.
She's also big. Like non-adjusted 98th centile for height and weight.

Aibu to carry on age adjusting her or should I just let it go now? Do 33 weekers usually experience delays at some point?

[VeryBitchyRestingFace]

Who are you correcting her to?? GP, health visitor, yourself?

I don't see how it would affect her at school if she's meeting her milestones now. There will presumably be children two months younger than her in her class?

[PotteringAlong]

I'd just let it go. If she doesn't need it adjusting then why do so? I cannot imagine many scenarios where you give adjusted / none adjusted ages now anyway? Surely she's just one.

[Champagneformyrealfriends]

It sounds like she's doing really well-I'd just let it go. You'll never know if she'd have done those things at 6 months had she been born on time, or if she'd still have done them at 8 months (for example).

Also it sounds to me as if she's ahead of a lot of babies her age in some respects (nephew, 4 days early, didn't walk until 14 months), so I'd see that as a positive sign of her progression.

[RockyBird]

No idea, but she sounds wonderful.

[FantasticBeasts]

It could have changed in 10 years but when DD was born development was corrected for 24 months.

[BeaveredBadgered]

If you're not worried about her development why does it matter?

[Skatingonthinice16]

I'm correcting to the GP etc.
Like she was ill a few weeks back and I mentioned it to the GP. I don't know whether it has any bearing on her health now or not?

[Oysterbabe]

I'm also not sure what you mean. Who are you correcting her to?

[Skatingonthinice16]

Yes HV said until 2 and brought with her the up to 9 month development questionnaire even though dd was 10 months

[QuackDuckQuack]

Those 7 weeks that she was early were spent in a different environment to non-prem babies. Things like having space to move around and things to see and hear. Whilst I am not suggesting that being prem is advantageous, a prem baby will not develop exactly as they would have done if they had gone to term, for many reasons.

Adjusting for prematurity is partly to know when to be concerned about development. If you aren't concerned about development without adjusting then you probably don't need to think about it.

[Skatingonthinice16]

And I suppose in my head. To myself a bit. If we go to groups and there are babies who were born around her due date I guess h mentally compare her.

[Lupinlady5]

So long as you have no reason to worry (and she sounds fine), there is absolutely no point comparing her to others of her age, corrected or otherwise. There is such a huge range of "normal" development, so long as they are within range it means nothing either way.

[FantasticBeasts]

Quack - have you had a seriously ill preemie in ICU with surgery, blood transfusions and several nights where they are not expected to make it??

Not suggesting being prem is advantageous

[Kranksy]

I think know you need to relax a bit tbh. my dc were prem and the only time their corrected age has been used is by the HV and gp.

Stop comparing her to other dc, most of them do things in their own time.

[Skatingonthinice16]

She was ill when she was born and in NICU where they keep it dark and as unstimulating (not a word I know) as possible because the babies aren't ready for it but she did bounce back quite well and we were home after just over two weeks.
Fanstastic your ride sounds a little scarier. It is very hard.

[Kohi36]

We corrected until my son was 3. He was born 3 months premature. The theory is that it takes a year for each month of prematurity to catch up. Of course every child is different, some catch up quickly and some unfortunately never catch up. The general consensus worldwide is that you correct for 2 years but this was when viability was at 32 weeks and 23 weekers are surviving now.

[EveOnline2016]

Could it be for medication.

Those 7 weeks there organs and other things would have been developing to those who are full term, so doses of certain medication it is needed for those purposes.

[FantasticBeasts]

Skating - those first few years when you are waiting to see if prematurity has had an impact on your child are very hard and I completely understand where you are coming from.

I was an in mate patient from 19 weeks and received a weekly chat about the chances of survival and likely effects from a neonatologist.

DD was sedated a fair bit, had surgery and was generally VV poorly for a good eight weeks.

Ten years on there are absolutely no ill effects but it doesn't stop you worrying during the early years.

[123bananas]

Ds was born at 34 weeks prem. I don't correct for him anymore as he is nearly 3. Physically he met all milestones uncorrected for age like your dd. He is also a big child, 6.5lb when born and off the top of the centile charts prior to birth. Speech wise he was behind his peers and has been attending speech and language groups. He is also less developed emotionally and much more baby-like than his peers.

DNiece was a 30 weeker, but always ahead of her corrected age expectations.

All children are different, so just take her as she comes. If she needs support down the line you can access it then.

[Fintress]

My friend's twin girls were born at 28 weeks and had developmentsl checks for 2 years. At their one year check they were running riot in the consultant's office chattering away. They met all their milestones quite early and have never been hindered in any way. One is in the forces and the other works in the medical field.

[Itsjustaphase2016]

By 7 weeks early, do you mean 7 weeks before the due date or 7 weeks before full term? I.e. Was she born at 33 weeks or 30 weeks? As that's a significant difference. At 30 weeks, yes you would be adjusting if need be for 2 years, by subtracting 7 weeks from her actual age. At 33 weeks, you're only 4 weeks behind, and this is really not significant where milestones are concerned.

[DailyFail1]

Nephew too was 7 weeks early. GP and HV ignored his crawling at 6 months, walking at 9 months, his 90 percentile height (measured against non-prem babies), and only wanted to stop correcting when he started talking (first words from 12 months, then repeating/babbling from 14 months).

[Skatingonthinice16]

She's a 33 weeker but my understanding was that 40 weeks is term although I know they say anything after 37 weeks isn't prem. ds was born at 36 and 4 so not that much later but every week makes a big difference doesn't it?