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?

Nephew was 30 wks. So possibly thats why they were bore concerned.

FantasticBeasts - that's why I said that. Because of course no parent of a prem would choose for their baby to have that extra time out experiencing the world, instead of being delivered at term without any of the huge range of issues that can come from prematurity. I am not suggesting that it is a good thing. But it is a difference. One of many differences. I didn't want my post to read as if I thought prem babies have a head start on conquering the world. So I said that.

37-40 is term. Neice was born at 36 weeks and HV described her as 1 wk early. Could be different according to hospitals/development tho.

Quack, with respect, it is not as simple as having space to move around and things to see and hear.

Having a GA and surgery and sedation for brain bleeds and blood transfusions and antibiotics and all manner of other drugs to keep them alive. Some preemies are vv poorly indeed, not enjoying their surroundings/the view.

I suppose - irrationally maybe - but because most of my friend's babies have been born at 42 weeks I feel like she was actually born 9 weeks earlier than quite a high percentage of babies. Not all of course and some will have been a lot earlier.
Her cousin was gestationally only three weeks younger but because she was two weeks late and dd was 7 weeks early there's now 12 weeks between them...

Well if she's a 33 weekend then she was 4 weeks premature so other than the very early milestones such as smiling, or following an object with eyes, I wouldn't expect a big difference between her and other children. Babies born non prematurely vary massively (by much more than 4 weeks) with crawling etc, so crawling at 8 months (adjusted 7) isn't too unusual I wouldn't say? Either way, unless you are concerned I don't think you need to adjust anymore

They always correct her as 7 weeks prem on the medical stuff?

She was 7 weeks prem. Being a couple of weeks early isn't significant so doesn't count as prem but doesn't mean that born at 33 weeks gestation is any other than 7 weeks prem.

With prematurity, they count back from 40 weeks, despite 37 being term.

My twins were very premature, and their EDD was always the 40 week point, despite the fact that they wouldn't have ever let me get to more than 36 weeks if I'd not had the problems that caused me to deliver early.

You should carry on using corrected gestational age until she is two (corrected)

My ADD was similarly prem, but also neglected in her first year.

Now 12 and behind in various areas. I never know whether it is because of prem, neglect, or just genes. There is no point my trying to work it out so we go with the flow.

OP, I suggest as doing well you stop worrying about correcting unless there are any development/health queries, in which case raise it in case relevant. happy birthday to your DD.

I think unless you've had a prem it can be a little more difficult to understand the significance of correcting, and how relevant it is in your life. My DD was 8 weeks early, she had more check ups than the average baby - neonatal nurse and HV visits, as well as paed appts. Constant weighing, measuring, and discussing of milestones - always 'correcting' her age, it's drummed into you regularly and it does become a big part of 'them'...not to mention the significance of whether it might mean their prematurity has had a long term impact on them.

For me, it was a security blanket as she was delayed. Pretty much with everything. But I held onto the fact that we could take a couple of months off and she was then just about on the outer limits of normal, as they would describe it. They were great, kept her monitored and now at 6yr old, I don't think about her corrected age at all, as it is now not relevant. What is relevant is her prematuriy, which unfortunately has left her with some difficulties (nothing major thankfully) but every hospital report begins with details of her early arrival.

My twins were 34 weekend and they were 6 weeks early. There 6 months so they've still got all of the mile stones to reach - the health visitor said they take the 6 weeks into consideration up to two years as most of the time Prem babies catch up by then. But if yours is doing everything then I'd just say her actual age

No, of course it isn't that simple. For a very lucky and not very premature few, there are some premature babies who are well and are able to breathe and feed without assistance and are allowed home relatively quickly. For a baby like that, the impact of prematurity is so different to others (as you have experienced) and to use blanket rules regarding age adjustment might not be necessary. Though clearly the OP isn't in this group, as her DD was in hospital for two weeks.

I've sat open mouthed listening to the father of an otherwise well 36 weeker tell the parents of a baby who had been very premature and ill that 'I know what it's like, X was premature'.

Agree quack- nephew almost died, born 2.5 pounds at 30 weeks. Was on a drip, incubator for 12 weeks, special formula, jaundice therapy. However my sis had the temerity to tell my sil that she understood as neice was early too. Brother shot her down immediately but it was such a stupid comment.

HV said Dd had caught up by her 1st birthday she was on par with babies her age she didnt walk till 15 months but that is stil within range though she was born at 34 weeks, I think you should maybe pull back now see her as a year old now especially with usual illnesses like colds her immune system and lungs should be fine now.

Let it go I would say and she sounds like she's doing fantastic for her age, by 1 year it doesn't make an awful lot of difference.

Mine was 33 weeks also but very behind yours; saw S&LT, PT, OT until the end of preschool, now you wouldn't know the difference between him and his peers. They counted his general prematurity but not specific weeks. Only because he had difficuilties and more something else they found than the prematurity.

I now have another, full termer, that is miles ahead of what her age should be but I know that on the whole they usually balance out.

Yes my nearly 37 week ds didn't walk until 14 months and really dd has hit most milestones at the same time or earlier than him...

Thank you for starting this thread, OP, as I am finding it reassuring - DD was born at 34 weeks and I was told to stop correcting at a year (she's now 18 months). Her speech does seem to be behind a lot of other children her age, though, so it's useful to know that she's not necessarily expected to have caught up quite yet.

DS was born at 28 weeks and I stopped correcting at 18 months

Dd1 was born at 36 weeks she was about 14 months walking.

Dd was born at 35 weeks. We were told to stop adjusting her age at 1 year old. The only thing to watch out for is that they will probably drop a centile when you suddenly stop correcting.

My triplets were born at 34w 4d so not quite as early as your dd and every week does count. 2 of them came home with me - dd had 1 night in special care and one of my ds 2 nights. The smallest one did not meet the hospital's discharge weight so he had to stay 10 days despite being well otherwise. He needed higher oxygen content in the air around him for the first 12 hours to keep his sats up and he had reflux but you will know from your own experience how lucky I was with their good health. Obviously it was on their medical records that they were early but they were never corrected for age but then they met all their milestones (I was not in the UK when they were born though - maybe it would have been more of a thing here?) The smallest at birth is shorter than the other two but now at 10 they have no issues. Smallest is more emotional still but may have been anyway. Now you would not know they were early by meeting them individually. Personally I think if your dd is meeting her milestones you don't need to think of her corrected age. Development is so varied anyway. I have 5 altogether, the earliest walkers were 9 months (both my girls) and the latest was 14 months. All totally within normal limits, they're just all different! Glad your dd is doing so well.

At 1 I would still correct.

My son is 6yrs now and was born @ 34 weeks. Don't correct anymore as they catch up.

You are right to correct until she's 2.
She was 7 weeks prem. The relief that everything is ok and your child is meeting their milestones doesn't change that.