# "Preterm" vs. "Premature"-- Am I the only one who knows the difference?!



## eilonwy (Apr 3, 2003)

I've met several babies who were introduced to me as "preemies" or "premature" babes who were just preterm. This irritates me something fierce! These babies had no breathing difficulties, they weren't sick, they didn't have trouble nursing... they were small but they weren't outside of the range of average, even. The last one I met weighed 6 lbs, 12 oz upon birth at 37 weeks.

My son was born at 37 weeks, and he *did* spend a week in NICU, but he wasn't premature, just preterm. A friend of mine had a baby at 34 weeks who was over 9 pounds at birth and who *was* premature.

Preterm= born before the end of week 37.
Premature=born before their oragans are sufficiently developed.

The vast majority of premature babies are preterm, but most preterm babies aren't premature! It drives me crazy when people mix these up, it seems like a deliberate attempt to make their babies out to be sick or tiny or something.







:


----------



## MamaE (May 1, 2004)

Well, my baby girl was post-term (if that's a word!)







That said, I honestly did not know the distinction between premature and preterm, and I consider myself to be pretty well-educated/well-read (even neurotic!) about all things pregnancy, baby, toddler... I am willing to bet many others also don't know the real distinction - perhaps?


----------



## kama'aina mama (Nov 19, 2001)

Well I just learned something. Thank you. I think it is largely colloqual usage. The fact that both abbreviate to "premmie" doesn't help either.


----------



## SamuraiEarthMama (Dec 3, 2002)

i did some googling, and it seems that the words "preterm" and "premature" are used interchangeably among both laypeople and medical personnel alike. where are you getting your information? just curious...

http://health.allrefer.com/health/pr...fant-info.html

http://www.merck.com/mrkshared/mmanu...er260/260b.jsp

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/preterm%20infant

http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dicti...preterm+infant

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/e...cle/001562.htm


----------



## eilonwy (Apr 3, 2003)

From Discovery Health

Quote:

Premature babies have not developed completely. The earlier a baby is born, the less developed its organs are. Premature babies tend to have very specific problems related to their underdeveloped organs. Sometimes the treatments that they receive for their underdeveloped organs also can lead to problems. For example, a baby born after only 24 weeks in the womb doesn't have fully developed lungs. Because of this it cannot breathe well on its own. It will probably need the help of an artificial breathing machine, or ventilator.
They do say that a premature baby has spent less than 37 weeks in the womb, but that's not strictly the case. The overwhelming majority of premature babies are preterm, but rarely (very rarely.. something like 1 in 500,000, maybe?) a baby will be born who is not mature but who has been in utero for more than 37 weeks. These babies often have a younger 'gestational age' than their due date would suggest and their ages are adjusted to reflect that.

Preterm babies are very common, though, and most of them have organs which are developed enough that they can survive outside of the womb without medical intervention. I'm working not only on the definitions of the words themselves (_premature_meaning "before maturity" and _preterm_ meaning "before the end of the gestational period") but on the definitions which were clearly delineated when Eli went to the NICU (where it was, for obvious reasons, much more important to make the distinction.)








T Postterm and postmaturity are also both words and are two different things. A postterm baby is one who has gone past the due time (42 weeks), a postmature baby is one who has been in utero long enough that the placenta has started to deteriorate/ceased to work effectively. Most postmature babies are postterm, but most postterm babies are not postmature, from what I recall. I was both.







I met a woman who's son was not postterm but who was postmature; his gestational age was adjusted after his birth to reflect that, and he was briefly hospitalized to deal with the complications of his postmaturity.


----------



## lilyka (Nov 20, 2001)

I know the difference and it bugs me when people use them wrong. I had a premature baby. had she stayed in for a few more days even though I woulod have still not made it to my 35th week she would have been just fine . She was a great big strappin' thing - 19 1/4 inches and 5#11oz. HUge for a 34 weeker and had very mild problems (except for that eating thing).

it is like people are so enraptured with preemies an they go around wearing it like a badge of honor when there babies were only a week or two early and use thier adjusted age . . . it is weird for me. Itis like they think it makes thier baby extra special and dpecial in all the ways each baby is special just isn't good enough. They want them to be in the preemie club. If they only knew how much that club sucked to belong to.


----------



## PumpkinSeeds (Dec 19, 2001)

My babe was 3 weeks early and I never thought he was out of the normal range for gestation. He had no health problems associated with that.

My friend just had a baby 3 weeks early and her babe just spent 2 weeks in the NICU.


----------



## etoilech (Mar 25, 2004)

As a mum of a 29 week premature infant, it does really irk me too. "The club" isn't nearly as cool as some people seem to think it is. Yep, it certainly is cool to have to deal with cpaps, ng tubes, p02 monitors, bradycardia, tachycardia, blood transfusions, and physiotherapy every week for 2 years and Erik didn't even have MAJOR complications. We consider ourselves very fortunate. There are ventilators, NEC, ROP, sepsis, etc. NICU time isn't fun and I can't stand it when someone says their kid was premature at 37 weeks (even though they were perfectly healthy and could go home the next day).

end







:

All babies are very special regardless of when they were born.


----------



## wednesday (Apr 26, 2004)

My baby was born at 37w0d and I have never described him as "premature" but I have told people he "came early" and that he would have benefitted from another week or two cooking. Which is what my LC and midwives told me, since we had such a very difficult time with breastfeeding in the beginning. He was sleepy, had a weak suck, and had jaundice that was tough to clear up since it was so hard to get him to eat. I was told by every medical professional who saw him that he was weaker, sleepier, etc. than a 40-week baby and we had to take some extra steps to make sure he ate enough. So I have never told people he was "premature" but there really isn't a different word that describes our situation. I have just told people he was "a little bit early."








to all of you whose babies had tough medical problems--I'm sure it is aggravating when it seems like people trivialize something so serious. There's some kind of funny cultural fascination with the tiniest, most vulnerable babies--remember when Cabbage Patch Kids dolls came in "Preemie" versions?


----------



## stafl (Jul 1, 2002)

It really bothered me when people called my first baby "premature" or "premie"
She was born at 37 weeks (probably 36, since I have long cycles, but you know, they go by LMP) and was never in NICU even though her lowest weight was 4lb2oz.
Like the Mama above, I'd tell people "she was just a bit early"


----------



## MamaE (May 1, 2004)

My babe was not actually postterm or postmature (thanks for the definition, OP). She was 41.5 weeks, but it sure felt like the longest 10 days of my life!

I've been thinking about this and believe that if my babe had been preterm or premature, I most certainly would have understood the distinction because it would have been pertinent to my situation. Since it wasn't, I didn't bother to learn the dif.

I can understand why it would irk you all, though. Thanks to this thread, I won't confuse the terms!


----------



## LavenderMae (Sep 20, 2002)

My son was preterm ,born at 36 weeks but he was very healthy and 6Ibs 8ozs, 19 1/2 inches, nursed soon after birth perfectly. I say he was a little early.
I have no romantisized notions about having a premie at all. I know that having my son a little early is no where in the same league as having a premie, it's not the same thing at all.

There is woman in my homeschool group who had her son at 36weeks (a month ago or so) and he weighed over 8Ibs but had to have a feeding tube for a week (I think maybe less though) because he was loosing weight and wouldn't eat well. He had some other problems too, none life threatening. I still wouldn't consider this baby a premie but preterm.


----------



## Heavenly (Nov 21, 2001)

This drives me nuts too! My son was born at 33.5 weeks. We lost him twice the first night and he was airlifted to a bigger hospital in the city (they even sent a special team from their hospital to come get him). He was in the NICU with all the tubes and IVs and everything else. And then I have people whose child was born at 36 weeks and was 7 lbs and never spent a minute at the NICU saying they know what I went through because there child was premature. Bull! Until you give birth and have to leave without your baby, and see your child hooked up to machines just to keep them alive then you don't know. I personally do think that most people want attention in any way they can get it. They want the pity "oh my child was premature, poor me."


----------



## eilonwy (Apr 3, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wakeUpMama*
My baby was born at 37w0d and I have never described him as "premature" but I have told people he "came early" and that he would have benefitted from another week or two cooking.

I usually say that Eli was "medium rare" and needed a bit longer to cook.









Using their "adjusted ages"..







: Some acquaintences of ours use their son's adjusted age (he was born at 37w2d) to justify the fact that he's not doing exactly the same things that our friend's nephew is doing on the same schedule (said nephew is about three weeks older than this baby).









I still don't understand why people think it's cool. I found it absolutely gut wrenching to have to go home without my son, I was heartbroken that he couldn't be in my room and that my nieces couldn't visit him. It was the longest and most horrific week of my entire life, and I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.







I'm really thankful that I didn't have to go through what the parents of premature babies do. It's not all about putting doll clothes on a little person.














:


----------



## Justice2 (Mar 18, 2003)

I have both premature (32 weeker) and a preterm (36 weeker) experiences. I gotta tell you guys though, my 32 weeker had higher apgar scores at 1 and 5 min. than did my 36 weeker...how weird is that? My dd weighed 3 lbs, 13 oz at birth, but required no oxygen (my 36 weeker required about 3 min of oxygen to 'pinken' him up...lovely steriod shots, but was still considered to be premature, IV fed (isn't it great when your baby has an IV in her head?), then tube and finally was able to bottlefeed (wasn't breastfed due to only education about it from my warped mother :mad). She stayed in the hospital for 14 days. Luckily we were in a rural hospital with no NICU. Her 'NICU' was just a different part of the nursery. I know that if we had been able to make it to a larger hospital in a larger city, she would have ended up in a NICU. I hate it too when people think that because their child was born 1 day before 38 weeks that they have a premature baby. It's also weird to have a child who wears the cloths size that he should be wearing!!!! My baby girl was (and still is) pretty petite!


----------



## Lousli (Nov 4, 2003)

I had never heard of that distinction, although it makes sense. Anyone who has ever discussed it with me (including my mother, who is a CNM) has used the terms interchangeably. In fact, since my daughter was born preterm (36 weeks) my mother has kind of freaked out about how I have a higher risk for a preterm or premature birth the second time around. I have told people that my daughter was premature, but I also add, 'But not very. She was only 4 weeks early, and she was fine, just a little small."

I don't say it to be cool, or be part of some club. It was always my understanding that the words had the same meaning. I also think it is important that my doctor knows about it, because of the increased risk factor. I never have tried to say that I can in any way understand or compare my experience to that of a parent who has had a premature birth, because I know that they are very different.


----------



## crazy_eights (Nov 22, 2001)

I admitted a woman to L&D the other day who told me her first was "a bit of a premie" - born at 39 wks gestation :LOL. Uh - NOT!


----------



## Justice2 (Mar 18, 2003)

Oh, Mom2six that's laughable!


----------



## wende (Oct 4, 2003)

Mom2six, I had the exact same experiance!

My ds was born at 31weeks, 5 days. His adjusted age was not so much an issue before, but he's almost 11 months old so now people are noticing that he doesn't quite seem like a 1 year old so I am always saying "well, technically he's 9 months since he was 2 months premature". I had a mom say "oh, my baby was a premie too. She was born a week early". :headscratch:


----------



## Verity (Aug 29, 2003)

I honestly thought they meant the same thing.


----------



## Verity (Aug 29, 2003)

Why do people think it's cool to be in that club? I don't know. Maybe the same reason they think it's cool to be in the club of women who were "delievered of" their babies by a "miracle working" doctor?


----------



## Clarity (Nov 19, 2001)

Even the several books I have on prematurity written for parents don't make too great a distinction. Some babies have more complications of prematurity, some, although born somewhat prematurely, have less or none at all. And I think some unknowing parents consider a fullterm baby of low birth weight to be premature.


----------



## lilyka (Nov 20, 2001)

A baby can be full term and of a good weight and still for some reason be pre-mature.

Also I had forgotten about preemie cabbage patch dolls. And I had one!! that is sick and twisted., Why not just call them cabbage patch babies. after all the others were supposed to be toddlers.


----------



## Periwinkle (Feb 27, 2003)

Excellent thread.









IRL, I almost never call out the fact that my twins were born early. In fact, as I just wrote that, I realize that IS how I put it (and only when someone asks, which they ALWAYS do since it's twins). I say, "they were a little early" or something like that. I only use the word preemie or say they were premature when pressed or when I know I am specifically talking to moms of preemies or people for whom knowledge that my babies were early is important.

My babies were born at 32 weeks, too.

But they were fine, and now healthy as can be, and so I don't see the point of calling it out, kwim?


----------



## MaricopaMom (Sep 21, 2003)

Yeah, it drives me nuts too. I am an NICU RN, so trust me, I know the difference. I get parents all the time who say they had a "preemie" when in reality, their baby wasn't even preterm!

I save the term "preemie" to only our smallest, sickest babies. They truly deserve it.


----------



## Doodlebugsmom (Aug 1, 2002)

I had no idea that some people considered babies born any time before 40 weeks preemies! That's pretty silly. Dd was born at just past 37 weeks and I never really considered her preterm or anything. I just figure she needed less gestational time to fully develop. Her apgars were 10/10 and she nursed vigorously for 1/2 hour as soon as she was out of my body. She weighed 6lbs11oz and was 20 inches long. Completely normal size. I always tell people that she was born a little before her due date. The whole "preemie club" idea is pretty silly to me.


----------



## nikirj (Oct 1, 2002)

We learned the premature/preterm distinction in premed anatomy & physiology. I thought it would at least be common knowledge for doctors and nurses...

I'm always stunned when people think of kids as preemies if they were born even a little before their due dates. It is like they want to be part of some mama-martyr club or something. I don't understand what could possibly be attractive about it.


----------



## magemom (Mar 5, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *etoilech*
As a mum of a 29 week premature infant, it does really irk me too. "The club" isn't nearly as cool as some people seem to think it is.


My brother was born at home at 26-28 weeks (not sure, his birth mom wasn't sure) he was 2 pounds 2 ounces. G-tube, oral aversions, lung issues- whole bunch of stuff I am sure I don't know about. And he was delayed beyond his adjusted age a whole bunch.

My cousin was an elective c section at 38 weeks. And her mother would always excuse her behavior or tantrum 'well, she's a premie, she just can't handle this yet' or 'we can't expect her to do whatever, she's a premie'

I *still* remember my aunt's face when cousin was 8 or 9 aunt gave such explanation and mom said 'most premies are all caught up by 7 years old' in a way blowing off my aunt's bad parenting (or lack of). Teehee.

I honestly never knew there was a distinction. All my kids have been "post dates" or as I say, a little late like me!


----------



## Foobar (Dec 15, 2002)

I am working on subtle distinctions myself right now. I have "pre-term contractions" which is NOT "pre-term labor" (unless the contractions change the cervix, it isn't labor, never mind that they hurt).

I am hoping this one stays until 36 weeks. At that point, I consider her full term. I had read that anytimeafter 37 weeks is term and as long as she is delevloped, I see no need to call her a premee.

My nephew was born at 34 weeks. Still don't think of him as a premee. He was just born early.

my cousin's triplets born at 30w4d, They were premees and needed those weeks in the hospital.


----------



## guestmama9924 (Mar 16, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *eilonwy*
I've met several babies who were introduced to me as "preemies" or "premature" babes who were just preterm.

yes this bugs me too. Not just for the semantics, but because many mothers of premature babies tend to refer to that baby as a preemie for a long time- up through the first year. "Jack is 5 months old, he was a preemie..."usually I can see this is because many moms wish to explain the possible gap in developement so their child does not end up being unfairly judged or compared.
But the "my baby was 2 weeks premature" just make me


----------



## Periwinkle (Feb 27, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Foobar*
I am hoping this one stays until 36 weeks. At that point, I consider her full term.


Hang in there Foobar.







If you're sure of your dates, then 36 weeks is NOT full term. It's a month early! You want to grow that babe as long as possible. Will a 36 weeker spend weeks in the NICU... almost definitely not. BUT... 36 weekers (and other slightly pre-term babes) are notorious for being slow to develop good nursing reflexes (remember, it takes some full term babies a few days or more to figure it out!) and are very, very sleepy babies, making demand feeding near impossible. Not all, but many.

My 32 weekers didn't develop good nursing reflexes and the ability to demand feed until right around their original due date. Wouldn't you know?!

So, if I were you, I'd aim for 38 weeks as being the minimum, which is the earliest range normally considered for "full term" (i.e., 38 to 42 weeks).

fwiw, I had pre-term contractions for one month before it turned into actual pre-term labor. My cervix was 0 and closed until 12 hours before I delivered. So it's possible to contract and contract MANY times per hour with no cervical change. As long as your OB or midwife is monitoring, you can breathe easy.









Good luck!


----------



## wednesday (Apr 26, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Periwinkle*
Hang in there Foobar.







If you're sure of your dates, then 36 weeks is NOT full term. It's a month early! You want to grow that babe as long as possible. Will a 36 weeker spend weeks in the NICU... almost definitely not. BUT... 36 weekers (and other slightly pre-term babes) are notorious for being slow to develop good nursing reflexes (remember, it takes some full term babies a few days or more to figure it out!) and are very, very sleepy babies, making demand feeding near impossible. Not all, but many.

This was my experience with a 37-weeker. We were instructed to wake him and feed him every 3 hours around the clock, going no longer than 4 hours at night. When he developed jaundice that schedule was amended to every 2 hours. And we couldn't work out nursing in bed at all. We had to really work at getting him wakeful enough to nurse, by undressing him so he would get chilly, blowing in his face, running a wet wipe over his body, and trying to get him latched on before he fell back asleep. If he nursed at least 5 minutes we would call it a success, but if he just dropped right back off to sleep after 15-30 seconds we had to wake him up again. usually changing his diaper would do the trick. Then he would poop 30 seconds into the feeding and need another change straight away. Then we would re-dress him, swaddle him back up and put him back in the bassinet. I would look at the clock and realize I had less than an hour before it was time to start over again. Not so bad during the day, but man was it hard at night. This went on for 3-4 weeks before he started being more wakeful and eating frequently enough on his own.

It is HARD to feed a baby that just wants to sleep. At the time I thought this must be "normal" for newborns but I have since learned from other people that 40-week and later babies are a lot better at waking and nursing. I do hope that my next baby will make it to 39+ weeks so the beginning won't be quite the same ordeal again.


----------



## lunchbox (May 14, 2003)

My dd was preterm (36 weeks 6 days) but weighed 9 lbs 15 oz. I did have PTL beginning at 32 weeks. She had no initial problems but did end up in the NICU for 5 days after 4 days at home. She had pathologic jaundice, which is apparently quite rare and for us was due to a blood incompatibility between her and I. (It can sometimes be due to a liver disorder and I am so thankful that it was not the case.) Her highest bili level was 28.5 and she had two blood transfusions.

She was (and is) a fantastic nurser. Much of our success is due to VERY pro-BF nurses in the NICU.

ETA that I usually just say she was three weeks early. I remember feeling so blessed that she was able to come home after only 5 days. She was so big compared to the other babies there. And there were quite a few babies who had been there for a long time.


----------



## Periwinkle (Feb 27, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wakeUpMama*
This was my experience with a 37-weeker. We were instructed to wake him and feed him every 3 hours around the clock, going no longer than 4 hours at night..../snip/ I would look at the clock and realize I had less than an hour before it was time to start over again. Not so bad during the day, but man was it hard at night. This went on for 3-4 weeks before he started being more wakeful and eating frequently enough on his own.











Yup... that is VERY consistent with my experience and a lot of friends I know who had babes at that 35 to 38 week mark, i.e., definitely "early" but not quite "full blown" preemies either.

I had to set an alarm clock to feed dd and ds -- every 2 hours too!! It would take me 30 minutes (or more) to get them to wake up. WE're talking, stripping them down, cool washcloth on their back, tickling their toes, turning on the lights bright, you name it. Then another 15 minutes just trying to latch them on. They'd nurse for 5 minutes and fall asleep again.... and then I'd have to try to wake them up again... over and over for AT LEAST an hour, many times 1.5 hours. I would finally crawl back in bed and literally 30 or 45 minutes later the alarm would go off again. There were many times when I never set the alarm because I had just finally finished a feeding and it was time to start the next one again. ARGH!!

One time I crawled into bed after a middle-of-the-night feeding and forgot to set the alarm. Dh and I woke up around 6 hours later -- dd and ds were still SOUND asleep. Never stirred or woke to eat. We missed like 3 feedings. We felt horrible and never did that again. But it underscored to me how they would literally starve themselves to death if given half a chance.









Not only can it be a huge hassle, but you are constantly, constantly worried that your sweet baby isn't eating enough. My LC came by almost daily to weigh them -- they're growth definitely picked up around the time they were full term too.

Then miraculously as they approached their due date, bingo -- they'd start waking themselves up to feed! I remember being positively jubuliant, but man that was a loooong few weeks!!

As I like to say, "full term is full term." Just because a baby can breathe on its own doesn't mean all of its reflexes are there (like nursing or self-waking to eat). And just because a baby isn't necessarily a "preemie" (although a true 36 weeker would probably count as a preemie), doesn't mean you're not going to have a real struggle til they get closer to their original due date. Obviously there are exceptions to this rule, but it my own experience, they are just that: exceptions to the rule, namely the overwhelming majority of mothers of babies born before 38 completed weeks say they've had nursing and/or feeding issues for a couple of weeks. No fun.









Sooo... hang in there! Every day counts. It sounds cliche, but it's true.


----------



## eilonwy (Apr 3, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Cyneburh*
I do refer to my sister that way but it's because her reflexes and such tested as being two weeks early right after she was born. She was induced at 41.5 weeks and the inductions didn't take, didn't take, didn't take and finally took. So when I'm talking about her birth it's to make the point that she _should_ have been born closer to 44 weeks. I think babies who are born at 38 weeks who are supposed to be born that early are no more premature then I was at 40w,11 days. With my sister she was _supposed_ to be born later so I do refer to her as two weeks early.

See, there's a big difference between saying "two weeks early" and "two weeks premature" which is the whole reason I started this thread. Which do you mean? If her gestational age was consistant with 38 weeks, then she was "two weeks early"; if it was more consistant with 35 or 36 weeks then she could potentially have been "two weeks premature", but they're two entirely different things, hence the distinction.


----------



## Katana (Nov 16, 2002)

I appreciate this thread.

My twin sister and I were born at 32 weeks. Although we were 'early', we didn't have any problems. We were kept in the hospital till we reached 5 lbs, as was the standard back then, but for no other reason.

My dd was born at 36 weeks. She was in the hospital for a week, just because it was policy to keep all babies not at 37 weeks in for a week. She had no problems either, and we were actually moved from the NICU part we were in the first few days because her healthiness and loud crying was upsetting and preplexing to the parents who really had the sick/premature babies.

My mom never went around saying we were premature. I don't know what it's like now, but back in the '70's/80's, if you said the word premature, it meant retarded or slow to a lot of people. My mom didn't want us being labeled like that, just because we came out two months before we were 'supposed' to.

Once in a while, I tell people that dd was a little early, but I rarely give out the week number, just because I remember what it was like for us, if people found out we were early. I can still hear this one woman, when we were 18 years old, no less, and my mom said, oh, yeah, they were born two months early, and the lady stared at us like we were insects and said, "Are they normal?"















:


----------



## Nikki Christina (Mar 27, 2003)

I never made it to 37 weeks with either of my babies..
DS was born at 36.6 weeks 7 lbs even.. he did have jaundice & was in the hospital a few days.. but in regular nursery & didnt need anything but the lights

DD was born at 36.3 weeks, 7 lbs 4 oz..
I did have preterm labor starting at 32 weeks (was 2 cms , contracting every 5 mins & hospitalized a week) & stayed on meds till 36 weeks (4 cms when I came off meds) .. but she was perfect & came home the day after birth

I didnt consider either of them preterm or premature


----------



## momtokay (Apr 29, 2003)

Interesting thread! I never knew there was a difference.

My first DD was born around 38 weeks and we had the whole having to wake her to eat, etc. for a couple weeks. I never thought of her as preterm or preemie or anything like that, but perhaps she could have used another week or so cooking. I was just thrilled she made it as far as she did considering all the contractions I had. She was neither preterm nor premature though.

My second was born at 37 weeks 0 days -- the very first day I could have her at the birth center instead of the hospital. She was a healthy 7lbs and seemed to have very few difficulties from being a bit early. The only time I thought of her "adjusted" age was just when my due date rolled around and she was approaching a month old.









To be honest, one of my big concerns with another baby is having a preemie. I had a lot of contractions with both of my pregnancies. And with DD#2 being on the border of "too" early, I think about it a lot. It's a "club" I would rather not join. My heart goes out to all of you who have had to endure time in the NICU with a baby who came too soon.


----------



## Peppamint (Oct 19, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *momtokay*
Interesting thread! I never knew there was a difference.

My first DD was born around 38 weeks and we had the whole having to wake her to eat, etc. for a couple weeks. I never thought of her as preterm or preemie or anything like that, but perhaps she could have used another week or so cooking.

Ditto... except i was induced.







: Dd was very sleepy, I hionestly think shw wasn't ready to be born.









Ds was born the day before his edd and was totally alert.

Thanks for the distinction. I always just said two weeks early for dd... never used preterm or premature.

Not a cool club I think!


----------



## TwingleyMom (Aug 24, 2003)

I am soooooooooooooo glad to see this!!! I belong to another board and we have a Preemies forum and I really dislike when the mommas who had 35-36 weekers pop in and say their babies, who spent maybe one-two nights in the NICU had preemies. No - I'm sorry you didn't. You had pre-term infants who have no issues at all.

I am the mom of 29 week very low birth weight babies who were in the NICU for 12 & 8 weeks respectively who both have CP.

I agree with the mom who posted - "why would you want to belong to this group?". It's not fun and my boys are 5 now and we're still dealing with the issues (one of my boys FINALLY got a diagnosis after fighting for services for 5 yrs).

Thanks for letting me vent.


----------



## nicholas_mom (Apr 23, 2004)

I also thought they meant the same thing.

My baby was 35 wks and 5 days, and at 7lbs and 4 oz. everyone in the hospital staff said he looked FULL-TERM :LOL


----------



## mnnice (Apr 15, 2003)

I have never been around the NICU first hand, but I did follow up with one and two year olds that had been in the NICU. We always made distinctions about brain bleeds, being on the vent, and babies born under 1500 grams. We adjusted ages up to two years. It seems that the brain bleeds (versus weeks or weight)tend to be the most predictive of later cognitive development.


----------



## Changed (Mar 14, 2004)

I hate that too~~


----------



## shelbean91 (May 11, 2002)

My kids were born at 35w 3d; 35w 1d, and 34w 3d. All were healthy (6.9 lb, 6.6 lb, 6.2lb), only went to the NICU to get checked- came home with me. We had jaundice issues and feeding issues. My dd took a month to nurse, ds 1 took 4 mos to nurse and ds 2 is 2 weeks old and not nursing exclusively, but latching ok about every other session and getting supplemental breastmilk after each feeding. I don't say they were preemie, I say they were early but healthy.

They would be preterm, but not premature? Or b/c of the feeding issues they would be considered premature also? (Not that I'm overly concerned by labels, but just curious)


----------



## lilyka (Nov 20, 2001)

If they are having those kinds of feeding issues they were premature. hope things get moving along smoothly soon and congratulations!


----------



## Peppamint (Oct 19, 2002)

Congrats michelle! I didn't know you had your baby. I hope the feeding issues will be resolved quickly!!


----------



## rachel (Dec 13, 2001)

I've been told, and have read that 37w0d is considered full term, and at 36w0d they would do nothing to stop labor if it started. My last 3 were born in the beginning of the 37th week. All were healthy, with good apgars, and no problems with nursing. They all wanted to nurse every 1 - 1.5 hours!

I would not want to be a part of the preemie club! I really feel for those mama's!! My cousin had her last baby at 34 weeks, he was 4 pounds and was in the nicu for just over 2 weeks. He had some intestinal problems for a few months. Not fun.


----------



## Periwinkle (Feb 27, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *rachel*
I've been told, and have read that 37w0d is considered full term, and at 36w0d they would do nothing to stop labor if it started.

Full term is 40 completed weeks from Day 1 of last menstrual period (*if* you have a perfect 28-day cycle) or 38 completed weeks from ovulation/conception. The range for full term is plus/minus TWO weeks, not three from the due date. Therefore, 37 weeks is not full term. And I certainly would have some choice words with any doctor who thought that a baby was ready to come out at 36 weeks.









But as we've been writing about, full term is different than mature, and pre-term is different than premature. The reason they let a woman "go" if she goes into labor between 36 and 38 weeks (and some even earlier, at 35 weeks) is strictly an insurace/monetary issue, namely, it would cost more to stop the labor and have the woman on meds/monitoring for a few weeks than it would to pay for the impact on the baby born then. In other words, it's cheaper to deliver the baby a little early.







Also, I think OBs, who undoubtedly see the seriously sick or preemie babies, think, "Oh what the heck, 36 weeks is as good as done," (meaning, the baby will have no complications in the end), but I don't think they look at the impact of having an extra 2 weeks to a month (or more!) of the difficult newborn phase on the mother (and rest of the family), on the nursing relationship, and ultimately, on the mother/child bond those first few weeks. As many of us have experienced, and countless more of our friends'/relatives' stories we recall, just because a baby doesn't spend a month in the NICU doesn't mean that baby was ready to come out.


----------



## obnurse (May 18, 2004)

Here is the truth about those two words. Preterm is a medical term meaning 'born before term' A pregnancy is considered term at 37w0d- 41w6d. Preterm means 'born before term" That encompasses all babies born ANYWHERE at 36w6d and below. The exact state of their health varies greatly. I have always taken the premature to have a 'sicklier' medical connotation and is used more by lay people.
In terms of physical and organ maturity, that is up to each baby. I have seen 33 and 34 weekers who are in awesome shape, and I have seen 36 weekers need a ventilator. Some of these early pretermers are in such good shape because their mamas were in "preterm labor" and given some goodie meds to get their lungs working better in case they came out early.
I don't know what the dictionary meaning of premature is, but I am sure that it has no distinction in the amount of weeks in a pregnancy. People have just opted to use them interchangeably, but the only real medical term is PRETERM. There is only one way to describe the babies condition, and that is to DESCRIBE it.


----------



## obnurse (May 18, 2004)

PS I totally disagree with the person above me saying that it is a money issue that lets MD's deliver babies early... Who told you that? The medication Terbutaline is quite cheap compared to a NICU stay!!!


----------



## rachel (Dec 13, 2001)

Periwinkle,
so I guess all the OB's and Midwives that practice at Stony Brook University Hospital (one of the best on Long Isand) who say and teach that a pregnancy is considered term at 37w0d are all wrong? I guess obnurse, who posted the same above is wrong too? Hmmm.

Not that I take what doctors or midwives say, as "law" anyway, if ya know what I mean!







I always do my own research, which is why I have my babies at home. I really only wanted to point out, that 3 of my children were born in the beginning of the 37th week, and were perfectly healthy and ready to be born, I realize however, that some babies may not be ready at 37 weeks.


----------



## Periwinkle (Feb 27, 2003)

Rachel, geez, I have read 38weeks. I think several others in this thread also thought term meant 38 to 42 weeks. No need to attack.









Obnurse -- actually, what I meant was that the cost of stopping preterm labor at 36 weeks can be more expensive than the cost of delivering a 36-weeker. Meaning, most 36 weekers will leave the hospital with their mamas or maybe a day later, requiring no additional cost than a full term baby. Many have no NICU stay at all (of course some do, as you mentioned - but then again, so do some 40 weekers). A terbutaline pump isn't all that cheap, nor is 24/7 uterine contraction monitoring, or nurse home visits to a mother on bedrest, and neither is the lost income (if working) from having to stay in bed all day insignificant. Now, if that mom were admitted to antepartum for a few days or a week (or, 4 weeks! to get her to 40 weeks) with mag drip, etc etc etc. that would almost certainly be much more expensive (again, on average) than any cost associated with extra care for a 36 weeker. Why? Because 36 weekers usually do well, especially long term. But many of them are just not quite fully "cooked", kwim?, and that brings a lot of struggles that may not cost much, but are none the less significant to those of us wanting to exclusively breastfeed from the get-go, for example.

OF COURSE a mama on terb at 26 weeks is cheaper than delivering that 26 weeker. What I meant, is there is absolutely a financial incentive to deliver a slightly preterm baby (35-36 weeks, say), and moreover, that most OBs don't give one little thought to the impact of doing so on things like nursing or mother/child bond -- such as I've mentioned before. They're thinking, "will the baby breathe on its own?" and so on, not "Will the baby be awake enough to demand feed?" or "Will the baby nurse effectively enough to increase supply and grow well?" or "What is the impact on the mother and the family and the 18 month-old sibling of another entire month spent in the newborn phase?"

I certainly didn't mean to "slam" the obstetrical profession, and hope you didn't take offense to that. I just wanted to point out that rarely have I seen an OB concerned about some of these "softer" things, and if money were no object, it could be a good idea to delay that labor a couple of weeks in some situations.


----------



## rachel (Dec 13, 2001)

Periwinkle, I'm sorry, please forgive me, I didn't mean to sound so attacking. I'll have to be sure to phrase my wording better! Again, I'm sorry. I do believe that some babies really aren't ready at 37 weeks, or 38 or 39 for that matter, even if it is considered term! I think babies grow at different rates. My babies for whatever reason, seem to be ready at 37 weeks, we never have feeding or breathing problems or anything, so that indicates to me they were ready!







(makes me happy!! I'd rather have 'em early--if baby is ready of course!-- than 2 weeks late!!) Hope there's no bad vibes between us!


----------



## DJCRiki (Feb 19, 2008)

I am a medical transcriptionist and see these terms used all the time, and the medical community doesn't even adhere to the definitions you set forth. I am currently in the middle of transcribing a report in which the doctor refers to the baby as a "premature 36 weeker" but does not state any medical conditions that would indicate that the baby has not reached maturity or had any such complications. I was looking it up on the net to see if "36 weeker" was acceptable terminology and stumbled on this site. Just thought I would put my two cents in.


----------



## Mindy82 (Feb 15, 2008)

Ok, who has EVER said it's "cool" to have a premie? My guess? no one. No one on this thread said it, and no one I know in real life has ever said it. Even if they didn't know the difference between premie and preterm, I assure you, they did not think it was cool or to be part of a club.


----------



## liberal_chick (May 22, 2005)

You would be surprised, Mindy. On my preemie board, one of the ladies had another mom ask how early her baby would have to be to have to come home on oxygen. Because she thought that was simply adorable. *irked*


----------



## Mindy82 (Feb 15, 2008)

Ewww well if that's the case then, that's awful. What a horrible thing to hope









I haven't ever met anyone like that though. Thankfully!


----------



## GooeyRN (Apr 24, 2006)

I do know the difference. DD was born at 36 weeks a according to u/s. Her organs were perfectly developed. She had a brief problem breathing at birth. But that was due to a tight nuchal cord and aspirating. She also had to be deeply suctioned. She was never able able to nurse. (I EP for her.) She did not have the sucking/rooting reflexes. She was jaundiced, sleepy, difficult to syringe feed, so became more sleepy, etc. She was low birth weight. I have NEVER referred to her as preterm or premature. She didn't have any of the major problems that preemies have. I always say she came a few weeks early. She did not require a NICU stay, so therefore the terms don't apply to her. We were able to keep her in my hospital room. She came home from the hospital early on day 3, like all the other healthy babies. Thankfully, now she is an extremely healthy normal sized 28 month old.


----------



## Mrs-Mama (Jul 2, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *liberal_chick* 
You would be surprised, Mindy. On my preemie board, one of the ladies had another mom ask how early her baby would have to be to have to come home on oxygen. Because she thought that was simply adorable. *irked*


----------



## Periwinkle (Feb 27, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *liberal_chick* 
You would be surprised, Mindy. On my preemie board, one of the ladies had another mom ask how early her baby would have to be to have to come home on oxygen. Because she thought that was simply adorable. *irked*

Probably the same type of person who buys those reborn dolls that are sickly or on apnea monitors. /shudders/

That is so wrong.


----------



## 4 in 2005 (May 22, 2004)

I never knew there was a difference in the 2 terms. I have always heard them used interchangably.

My nephew was born at 34 weeks. He was sent by airvac to a NICU per SOP at the hospital but other then feeding problems the NICU Drs felt were due to the sedation he was given for the flight, he was fine. So I guess one could debate if he was premature or preterm because we don't know for sure it was the sedation that gave him the rough start or not.

I was born at 34 weeks and was put in an incubator only because I was born in the hallway. I had no other issues not even feeding issues.

My younger brother was born at 36 weeks. He also had no issues.

So when my daughter was called premature from WIC, I felt that was so wrong. My daughter was born at 37 weeks 5 days. To me I knew that my nephew, my brother and I were lucky to have no issues. So to put my daughter in the premature catagory seemed incorrect to me. Know I now I was correct.


----------



## AllieFaye (Mar 7, 2007)

The distinction doesn't really bother me either way. What _does_ chap my hide is when people refer to the NICU as "the preemie unit." It's for all neonatal special care issues - including illness and injury. Not all full term babies are healthy.


----------



## DoomaYula (Aug 22, 2006)

My boys were born at 34w, at 3.11 and 5.10 so they were definitely pre-term. Premature? I guess, but I didn't go around talking about it much. They were in the NICU a week, but compared to many of the other kids there







mine didn't have any serious problems. They had ng-tubes for a few days until they could suck. After the NICU they spent 3 days on a pediatric floor.

They were kind of on the smaller side until around 2yo, but not noticeably.

I have two friends who had term babies that spent time in the NICU (for a heart problem, and for detox) so I'd never think of it as the preemie unit.

And using "he's a preemie" as an excuse for a, say, five year old's behavior, when he was born at 36w? Please!


----------



## WeasleyMum (Feb 27, 2007)

Thanks for the education, I didn't even realize there was a difference between the two terms. That said, I don't think I've had to use either in conversation before.


----------



## AlpineMama (Aug 16, 2007)

My daughter was supposedly 36+1 when she was born, and she was bigger and more mature than my 37+1 son. Both were fine at birth, although I was repeatedly told by the pediatrician, lactation consultants etc that since the girl was a "preemie" she wouldn't be able to suck well enough to establish a milk supply in me. Well, she's 2 weeks old today and (knock on wood) so far she's a great nurser, and I'm definitely not lacking in the milk department. I think they both came when it was their time to come, even if that was weeks ahead of the average. I guess they just baked quickly. I don't think either was premature. Preterm, perhaps, depending on who you ask.


----------



## NatureMama3 (Feb 25, 2004)

I've never heard anyone call anything after 36 weeks preterm or premature.









I wouldn't consider mine early if born at or after 36 weeks. No more than I consider mine "post dates" at only 42 weeks.


----------



## Periwinkle (Feb 27, 2003)

I would. I've seen 36 weeks. It's early. Sure, most of the time, they're not intebated with being fed via IV with TPN, but most of the time they're still sleepy, floppy, weaker, poorer latch, poorer suck, etc. compared to a baby born when they should be.

A lot of people get to 36 weeks and exhale. I didn't. When I got to 36 weeks with #3, I prayed every day to get a couple of more weeks.


----------



## NatureMama3 (Feb 25, 2004)

My sister's first was 35.5 weeks and had no problems at all. I guess that colors my views.


----------



## Periwinkle (Feb 27, 2003)

I don't mean this disrespectfully, but a lot of parents of preemies say their babies "had no problems at all" and for a first time mother with no understanding of comparison, I can see it even more. I think a lot of times it is part a.) comparing them to that awfully sick 24 weeker two isolettes over who came in at 1.2 pounds, and b.) desperately wanting to think positive and believe there are no lasting problems from their early emergence into the world.

People asked if my twins had any problems. I said, "nope they were healthy!" or "Just a little early!" or "Fortunately they did just great!"

They were 31+2 weeks and were in the NICU a month. But to me, their CT scans were negative and they didn't get NEC and eventually they got to nurse and even though dd had CPAP it was room air and pretty soon they were in the feeder-grower room of the NICU and I got to pretend like we were just normal folks. Sure nursing was impossible at first but we got it eventually (even though my supply never was what it needed to be without pumping, which I did for 6 months









But I saw scary early in the NICU and my twins, while premature, were not scary early. I never worried they were going to die. So that was my benchmark for responding to the "were they okay?" questions: were they ever at death's door.

It was not until my third child was born full term that I _got it_. Wow. What a difference an alert and vigorous and coordinated and fully cooked baby makes.

Still, when I am asked that question about the twins, I still don't answer that question very honestly. It's just too hard.

I'm not saying it's not possible and it may be your sister's baby is truly an exception, but I'd be willing to bet money that 99% of 35.5 weekers did have problems. Never were able to nurse exclusively for example. Mothers never established a good milk supply. Oral aversions. Reflux. That sort of thing, at a minimum.


----------



## MonP'titBoudain (Nov 22, 2005)

I've never known there to be a distinction between the 2 terms. Now I'm confused. DS was born at 35+5. He was 6#7oz (BIG!) but definitely a _little_ undercooked: no suck reflex, very jaundiced (until his EDD), and so sleepy my friends joke they didn't see him awake until he was almost 3 months old! We had major nursing issues, but I'm stubborn and we got through it. He didn't start waking for feedings until he would have been 40 weeks. When asked (and at this point that doesn't happen very often) I've always said he was a _little_ premature. Because he didn't act like a full term baby. But I always counted my blessings that he was so big and healthy and didn't have major prematurity issues.

I get the impression that a lot of the moms with early or sick preemies on this thread seem to be saying that a baby is not premature unless s/he needed major NICU care: oxygen, feeding tubes, etc. So, I don't know what to think. DS was definitely a little undercooked. But he was doing a lot better than the 28-weeker that our friends had.


----------



## NatureMama3 (Feb 25, 2004)

no, I mean I observed her and she was perfect. no breathing issues, no floppiness, no trouble nursing, no nothing. She really WAS just fine. Likely because my sister had been in PTL since 25 weeks and the stress had matured her in time. Nonetheless, she really had no problems.

I feel plenty adequate to evaluate, since I had "real" preemies (34 week twins who were very immature and spent 2 and 3 weeks in the NICU). They had collapsed lungs, were on NG tubes, couldn't maintain body temp, etc. ie premature.


----------



## Periwinkle (Feb 27, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MonP'titBoudain* 
I've never known there to be a distinction between the 2 terms. Now I'm confused. DS was born at 35+5. He was 6#7oz (BIG!) but definitely a _little_ undercooked: no suck reflex, very jaundiced (until his EDD), and so sleepy my friends joke they didn't see him awake until he was almost 3 months old! We had major nursing issues, but I'm stubborn and we got through it. He didn't start waking for feedings until he would have been 40 weeks. When asked (and at this point that doesn't happen very often) I've always said he was a _little_ premature. Because he didn't act like a full term baby. But I always counted my blessings that he was so big and healthy and didn't have major prematurity issues.

I get the impression that a lot of the moms with early or sick preemies on this thread seem to be saying that a baby is not premature unless s/he needed major NICU care: oxygen, feeding tubes, etc. So, I don't know what to think. DS was definitely a little undercooked. But he was doing a lot better than the 28-weeker that our friends had.









ITA with everything you wrote, including the grey area between premature and a little undercooked.

I also found with my twins that they didn't nurse well enough to take a full day's worth of milk at the breast with no SNS until 2 weeks past my due date. Very interesting.

As for NatureMama3's sister, I think that sounds great but I don't know... maybe she was off on her dates, kwim? A week or two makes a huge difference. Or whatever I'll just say yay great maybe that baby was the one in a thousand. I think the important thing here to note is that while one anecdote of a 35.5 weeker being TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY full term and vigorous and a fantastic nurser etc is nice, it is hardly representative. 35 weekers are often undercooked and yes even fully premature.


----------



## NatureMama3 (Feb 25, 2004)

oh I agree, at 35 weeks I wouldn't expect full normalcy. I'd expect there could be reflux, nursing issues, etc. But I still wouldn't call a 36 weeker a preemie.









She wasn't off on dates. But preterm labor can speed up maturation (just like the steroid shots do--it's natural steroids). She's a radiologic technician and they watched that baby so often. It was always true to date.


----------



## Heavenly (Nov 21, 2001)

My son was 34 weeks and was in the NICU. I definitely say he was premature. My second DD was 36 weeks and she had some problems but wasn't in the NICU. I say that she was a month early, not that she was premature. She had some trouble breathing at birth, she had really low blood sugar, she was jaundiced and it was sheer hell to get her to wake up to nurse for weeks! I would strip her down, keep an ice pack next to me on which I'd place a wet wash cloth and then put it on her and it still wouldn't wake her up! My first DD was my only full-term baby (she was 39 weeks 5 days) and let me tell you it DOES make a big difference!

As for long term effects my son was small for his age for quite awhile. He is now pretty average for size. He is 7 years old, 48 inches and 50.5 lbs. He also had chronic ear infections until we took him off dairy and he was about to be diagnosed asthmatic but we took him off wheat and it cleared it up. My second DD was further along in gestation than he was and she was much bigger size was (she was 8lbs 4oz. at 36 weeks!) but she has had more health problems than he has. She has severe food sensitivities and some full blown allergies. She was diagnosed with severe reflux at 2 months old (and not just that reflux where moms say it because their child spits up alot). She is 2 now and we don't have her on medication for the reflux anymore but we are starting to consider putting her back on it because she is having problems. So overall its hard to tell what the long term effects will be with a child born early.


----------



## AlpineMama (Aug 16, 2007)

Question: When DO you start using adjusted dates, if you don't do it for all babies? I get why you wouldn't for a 39 weeker, but why not for a 36 weeker for example? Technically they are a month early, cooked or not.


----------



## Periwinkle (Feb 27, 2003)

If I had to schedule a c-section at 38 weeks but my babies are usually born at 41 or 42 weeks, I wouldn't adjust the age in public of course but I would to myself add a few weeks when taking into account things like organizing sleep-wake rhythms and other things that are TOTALLY age of the brain related and do not appear earlier due to experience or socialization.

But in terms using adjusted age almost more than actual age and as a critical way to determine where a child is falling developmentally and on growth charts etc.... I'd say give or take...

34-36 weeks -- for ~6 months
30-34 weeks -- for ~18 months
Before 30 weeks -- until age 2 (or even longer for very early micro-preemies)

The thing is, they never actually "catch up." That is a myth. What happens is that the milestone ranges are so wide that just because your 32 weeker isn't walking at 15 months isn't really unusual and if they start walking at 18 months of age well it's certainly a little late but plenty of normal full term babies walk "late" too. The milestone ranges just start blending into one another.

I had 31+2 week preemies who had a shaky start (GERD, apnea-bradycardia, trouble BFing at first, etc) but no life-threatening issues, and their 6 month developmental assessment was totally normal (i.e., they were tracking at or ahead of where a 4 month old should be). Without question it mattered a lot (in terms of where they were developmentally) in their first year of life that they were born 2 months early. But I can also say that I could tell tiny differences up to 2 years and even a little beyond. Like when they learned to walk (15 months and 17 months -- dd didn't even pull up until her 1st birthday - again totally normal if she started pulling up at 10 months which was her corrected age but most 1 year-olds are definitely cruising (not all, but most)). And also when they hit the terrible two's lol (they were golden for longer than most tots and didn't even KNOW the word "no" until after their second birthday I swear to god - I mean they knew how to express what they wanted or didn't want of course, but it didn't turn into the famous NO! of toddlerhood until later than their same age peers). When ds grew out of his dairy sensitivity -- which was several months after his 2nd birthday whereas most kids who WILL outgrow it do it by their 2nd birthday. Also just subtle things wrt maturity were noticable (to me, not to anyone else) into their third year.


----------



## Lousli (Nov 4, 2003)

I pretty much consider my 36 weeker to have been preterm or premature. She was breathing fine but weighed only 5 pounds 4 ounces, had jaundice, reflux, latching problems. I didn't really adjust her age for more than a month or two as she gained weight rapidly and then started acting like she was full term pretty quickly.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I was watched more carefully during my second pregnancy because of my first birth. It turned out that my second was 33 weeks, which I definitely consider premature. And like Periwinkle, I usually say that she was fine, no major problems or anything, with that same meaning that I never was worried that she might die.

I still don't see a lot of difference between the terms preterm and premature. As others have mentioned, they are used fairly interchangeably even by the medical community. It doesn't matter to me which terminology people use, as long as they aren't calling a 38 weeker premature, yk?


----------



## justmama (Dec 24, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lilyka* 
I know the difference and it bugs me when people use them wrong. I had a premature baby. had she stayed in for a few more days even though I woulod have still not made it to my 35th week she would have been just fine . She was a great big strappin' thing - 19 1/4 inches and 5#11oz. HUge for a 34 weeker and had very mild problems (except for that eating thing).

it is like people are so enraptured with preemies an they go around wearing it like a badge of honor when there babies were only a week or two early and use thier adjusted age . . . it is weird for me. Itis like they think it makes thier baby extra special and dpecial in all the ways each baby is special just isn't good enough. They want them to be in the preemie club. If they only knew how much that club sucked to belong to.

Being the parent of a 34weeker and a 33weeker who WERE premature, I sympathize. I couldn't have posted this better myself. You are straight on. This little club SUCKS to belong to. I would have traded our preemie outfits and nicu weeks and spinal taps and iv's and constant handwashing and synagis vaccines and ng tubes and TPN and antibiotics and big plastic isolettes and apnea monitors for another few weeks in utero. Both my babies truly WERE premature. Both stayed 2 weeks each, one came home on an apnea monitor and the other came home weighing less than 5lbs and having special dietary needs. It drives me MAD when people talk about their "preemie" born at 36 or 37 weeks weighing 6 or 7 or even 8lbs and needing only a few days of nicu time for monitoring. I can't even imagine what the mamas of our little micro miracles think. Spending months in the nicu and having to deal with being vented and having multiple surgeries and meds and then hearing people complain about their week or two in. I cannot even fathom. I am traumatized from our stays so I tip my mama hat to those parents.








What gets me the worst is people telling me that having a 33 or 34 weeker wasn't "too bad." And my 4 and 5lbers were "a good weight." And about their cousin's sister's nephew's dog's aunt's kid was born at 1lb and is "just fine" today 3 years later.







:


----------



## AllieFaye (Mar 7, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MonP'titBoudain* 
I get the impression that a lot of the moms with early or sick preemies on this thread seem to be saying that a baby is not premature unless s/he needed major NICU care: oxygen, feeding tubes, etc. So, I don't know what to think.


This illustrates my earlier point. So, my 40 weeker was "premature" because he needed major NICU care - _due to an injury?_







: Whether a baby is in the NICU with all kinds of tubes and testing is not the point. Special needs babies go to the NICU even if they are born on their due dates. There are all kinds of reasons that a baby needs extra care; extra care, in an of itself, does not make the difference.


----------



## MonP'titBoudain (Nov 22, 2005)

I really don't think that anyone is trying to say that NICU care is only for preterm/premature babies.

My point was that there are varying degrees of prematurity: that some (most?) preterm babies are born before they are fully developped but the issues they have may not land them in the NICU or be life-threatening. But they are still obviously under-developped.

I don't say that to negate the experiences of parents with very sick babies. I cannot imagine the stress that brings (regardless of whether it occurs after 40 weeks gestation or 26 weeks of gestation). I wouldn't wish that on any parent or any child.


----------



## sadiejane08 (Jul 21, 2007)

I never realized there was a distinction, either. My second was a 33-weeker with absolutely no problems, miraculously enough. We stayed two days for observation, but he was 5 pounds even (large for his gestational age, which we knew to be spot-on) and breathed and nursed beautifully from the get-go. (I was able to get steriod shots for his lungs before he was born.) So I guess by the terminology given here, he was preterm but not premature.

When relevant I usually refer to him as my 33-weeker, but also sometimes as a preemie. I had no idea I might be offending people whose children (whether born earlier or later than mine) had difficulties after the birth.

Of course, the terminology makes perfect sense. Preterm = before 40 weeks. Premature = before fully formed.


----------



## Periwinkle (Feb 27, 2003)

Wow. Our hospital which has a nationally recognized level 1 NICU had a policy that babies were not allowed to be discharged until 35 weeks. And they had to clear a lot of other hurdles (gaining well, holding their temps, no A's and B's, etc.) of course, but one of those hurdles was passing the 35 week mark. Anyway, I know different policies are different but allowing a mother to bring home a 33 weeker is definitely not the norm. Just wanted to clarify that in case other people are reading and -- as they often seem to do much to my dismay -- think that it's normal for 33 weekers to be totally and completely fine.

Re: weight....

This has ALWAYS bugged me. It does and it doesn't matter how much your baby weighs. Mine were "a great weight" for 31+2 weeks weighing in at 4 and 4.5 lbs.







So the F what, kwim? They were TWO MONTHS early!! Have you ever seen a 4 lb. baby? They look tiny and frail no matter that they are a good pound or even two more than others born at their gestation, they still weigh half what a full term baby does. And, hello... has anyone heard of gestational diabetes, lol... it's not always a good thing when a 36 weeker weighs 8 lbs.







: And it most certainly does not mean they were ready to be born! My full-term son (child #3 where I carried him in a healthy pregnancy to full term) was 10 lbs. 9 ounces at nearly 40 weeks. The boy was a giant. He was thought to be around 7 lbs. at 35 weeks, 8 or 9 at 37 weeks. He could have been born at 37 weeks weighing 9 lbs. and everyone would have said "oh you just cook them fast!" and other stuff like that but no way in heck would I have wanted him born almost 3 weeks earlier than he was! He was vigorous and robust and nursed like a champ from day one. Oh what a difference a week (or few) makes.


----------



## sadiejane08 (Jul 21, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Periwinkle* 
Wow. Our hospital which has a nationally recognized level 1 NICU had a policy that babies were not allowed to be discharged until 35 weeks. ... Anyway, I know different policies are different but allowing a mother to bring home a 33 weeker is definitely not the norm. Just wanted to clarify that in case other people are reading and -- as they often seem to do much to my dismay -- think that it's normal for 33 weekers to be totally and completely fine.

We definitely didn't and don't think our situation was the norm -- we were, and nine years later still are, amazed and intensely grateful that we were so lucky. No idea why, either; my dates were accurate.

We're about to have another preterm (but hopefully not premature!) baby due to vasa previa. Hopefully we make it to a scheduled c-section at 36 weeks. But if we have to have an emergency section before then, we already know that hospital policy will require him to stay until 36 weeks however healthy he may be. So we really were lucky with our second that the hospital let him come home with us.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Periwinkle* 
Re: weight....

This has ALWAYS bugged me. It does and it doesn't matter how much your baby weighs. Mine were "a great weight" for 31+2 weeks weighing in at 4 and 4.5 lbs.







So the F what, kwim? They were TWO MONTHS early!! Have you ever seen a 4 lb. baby? They look tiny and frail no matter that they are a good pound or even two more than others born at their gestation

No argument from me on this. In our case his larger-than-average weight was signifcant because he was just over the cutoff weight for the NICU. That meant (since he miraculously had no other problems) he could room in with me. He certainly wasn't large by any other criterion! He seemed so tiny and wore preemie clothes the first couple of months. On his due date (he was 7 weeks old then) he still looked like a newborn and slept like one, too.

By the way, none of the wonderful amazingness of his being so healthy at 33 weeks erases the sheer terror and horror of the week that led up to his birth, including the moment where they told me I had to have a blood transfusion because if I ended up needing an emergency c-section I'd die otherwise. And however healthy this current baby turns out to be despite his preterm birth, I've been in terror and will continue to be on pins and needles every waking moment (and many sleeping ones) until this vasa previa nightmare is over.

So if "trauma suffered" is part of what is upsetting mothers of premature babies (who needed NICU help) when mothers of preterm babies use the word for themselves, well, many of us mothers of miraculously healthy but VERY preterm babies have been through h*ll, too. I, for one, don't feel like part of a n elite club when I say "premie". I just feel like a very lucky mother of an infant born far too early.


----------



## Periwinkle (Feb 27, 2003)

You summed up my feelings exactly.







It's not a fun "club" to be in at all and I've never understood the desire to be part of it.

Anyway, good luck with this one!







:

One random thought re: trauma to mothers from this... mamas of 42 weekers who are in the NICU for 2 weeks.... that could almost be worse, kwim? No one expects their 8 lb. 42 weeker to be sickly and clinging to life after a flawless pregnancy and easy delivery.







When you are pregnant with twins and then have preterm labor, at least being in the NICU is something I pretty much expected.. as much as I didn't want it to happen I had read all about it and was prepared for it.


----------



## sadiejane08 (Jul 21, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Periwinkle* 
You summed up my feelings exactly.







It's not a fun "club" to be in at all and I've never understood the desire to be part of it.

Anyway, good luck with this one!







:

Thanks!









Quote:


Originally Posted by *Periwinkle* 
One random thought re: trauma to mothers from this... mamas of 42 weekers who are in the NICU for 2 weeks.... that could almost be worse, kwim? No one expects their 8 lb. 42 weeker to be sickly and clinging to life after a flawless pregnancy and easy delivery.









So true! We're actually really lucky we're going to have a 36-weeker via scheduled c-section (bah!): undiagnosed vasa previa usually (56 to 95% of the time, depending on whose statistics you use) leads to an uneventful pregnancy with labor at term that ends tragically in the death of a perfectly healthy baby. And that has got to be the hardest thing of all to experience.


----------



## CalebsMama05 (Nov 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *eilonwy* 
I've met several babies who were introduced to me as "preemies" or "premature" babes who were just preterm. This irritates me something fierce! These babies had no breathing difficulties, they weren't sick, they didn't have trouble nursing... they were small but they weren't outside of the range of average, even. The last one I met weighed 6 lbs, 12 oz upon birth at 37 weeks.

My son was born at 37 weeks, and he *did* spend a week in NICU, but he wasn't premature, just preterm. A friend of mine had a baby at 34 weeks who was over 9 pounds at birth and who *was* premature.

Preterm= born before the end of week 37.
Premature=born before their oragans are sufficiently developed.

The vast majority of premature babies are preterm, but most preterm babies aren't premature! It drives me crazy when people mix these up, it seems like a deliberate attempt to make their babies out to be sick or tiny or something.







:

I know that annoys me so much! I was a 33 weeker who spent 6 weeks in the NICU and had loads of problems and people are always telling me about the their preemies and when I say "oh what problems did they have?" and they said "none just small and early" and I say "oh they weren't premature then! just preterm that's great!" and they say "OH NO...they were VERY premature!"


----------



## carlylovesthesims2 (Mar 22, 2007)

me and my twin were born at 35 weeks viaa emergancy c section breech with me and my tiwns cords wrapepd tightly around my neck i was in severe fetal distress and wasnt breathing and had no heartbeat when iwas born iwas recusitated and spent another 5 weeks in hospital in the nICU i have mild to moderate cerebal palsy scoliosis and other health related issues that stemm from my birth my drs consider me premature i weighed 5lbs 4 but dropped to like 4lbs after birth i also nearly died when iwas 11 months old of premounia i spent another month im hospital on a vent then i went home for my first birthday according to my mum i was tube fed for months because i couldnt breastfeed etc


----------



## carter87 (May 26, 2008)

This extremly erks me as well! My daughter was what they call a mircro preemie born at just 25 weeks and weighed 1lb 10oz. She was so early that the doctors gave her just a 40% chance of survival and said that if she did surive she would on have a 60% chance of "being normal"We spent over 100 days in the NICU. She was ventilated for 2 months and received a couple blood transfusions and had tons of apneas, and had ROP in her eyes that could've lead to her being blind. Her eyes were still fused shut when she was born and I couldnt even hold my baby for for almost 2 weeks! Thats what a preemie is! Not a baby thats just small and has to stay there for a week to make sure she/he gains a little bit of weight! I hated heaing parents go on about how they finally get to bring there baby home after a week or two. I would've gave anything to have brought my daughter home after a freakin week!!!


----------



## MaryLang (Jun 18, 2004)

That drives me insane as well. My DD was born at 36 wks, and stayed a week in the NICU a week for breathing trouble, and sugar problems. I NEVER refer to her as premature or preterm, she was just about term. I have friends who introduce their kids as preemies who were born later than DD and didn't have a NICU stay at all.


----------



## Lousli (Nov 4, 2003)

I've been trying to think how I want to respond to this thread (again) and I finally think I can try to say it and hopefully won't offend anyone. I keep reading these posts that make it sound as if the prematurity or illness of their baby is like a *contest*. It makes me sad to read that some people feel that it only really counts if your baby was in the NICU for a certain length of time, was very ill, was a certain gestational age, or weighed less than a certain amount.

We all know that there are babies who do great at 34 weeks, at 36 weeks. And babies who don't. There are amazing micropreemies who are born at 26 weeks and eventually come home happy and healthy. And babies born at full term that don't.

Every single mama who has a baby born with a problem feels like that problem is huge. To her, that is the worst experience of her life. Her one day in the NICU may seem insignificant if you've been there 3 weeks, or months, but it is still painful to her. I understand that it can't be compared to the experience of having a teeny tiny baby or a very ill baby that is hospitalized for months. But does it need to be compared? Can we not, as mothers, and especially as mothers who have suffered the prematurity of our own babes, not just support another mother going through a rough time without pointing fingers and saying, "she didn't have it as rough as I did"?

Even those babies that are near term can have problems with weight gain, jaundice, feeding, reflux, and other things that can be concerning. To the brand new mom struggling with breastfeeding while her baby's pediatrician warns about failure to thrive, these are big problems too. This is still a mom that needs to be helped and supported, not told that she isn't allowed to use the term premature to describe her baby because he wasn't early enough.

I understand the annoyance at people who have perfectly healthy full-term babies calling them preterm or premature or whatever because they think it sounds cute or something. But whatever. Eventually they will have a conversation with someone who will look at them in disbelief when they describe their 39 weeker as a "preemie" and maybe it will start to sink in.

I don't know, it is just getting to me how much this thread has dissolved into a mommy war over who is allowed to call her baby a preemie and who isn't. I know that there is a mom here who has a daughter that was born at 25 weeks and spent months in the hospital and she tells people on the NICU forum that any time in the NICU "counts." It is still a terrible experience for the parent, no matter how long it lasts.


----------



## Katzchen (Aug 13, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Lousli* 
I've been trying to think how I want to respond to this thread (again) and I finally think I can try to say it and hopefully won't offend anyone. I keep reading these posts that make it sound as if the prematurity or illness of their baby is like a *contest*. It makes me sad to read that some people feel that it only really counts if your baby was in the NICU for a certain length of time, was very ill, was a certain gestational age, or weighed less than a certain amount.

We all know that there are babies who do great at 34 weeks, at 36 weeks. And babies who don't. There are amazing micropreemies who are born at 26 weeks and eventually come home happy and healthy. And babies born at full term that don't.

Every single mama who has a baby born with a problem feels like that problem is huge. To her, that is the worst experience of her life. Her one day in the NICU may seem insignificant if you've been there 3 weeks, or months, but it is still painful to her. I understand that it can't be compared to the experience of having a teeny tiny baby or a very ill baby that is hospitalized for months. But does it need to be compared? Can we not, as mothers, and especially as mothers who have suffered the prematurity of our own babes, not just support another mother going through a rough time without pointing fingers and saying, "she didn't have it as rough as I did"?

Even those babies that are near term can have problems with weight gain, jaundice, feeding, reflux, and other things that can be concerning. To the brand new mom struggling with breastfeeding while her baby's pediatrician warns about failure to thrive, these are big problems too. This is still a mom that needs to be helped and supported, not told that she isn't allowed to use the term premature to describe her baby because he wasn't early enough.

I understand the annoyance at people who have perfectly healthy full-term babies calling them preterm or premature or whatever because they think it sounds cute or something. But whatever. Eventually they will have a conversation with someone who will look at them in disbelief when they describe their 39 weeker as a "preemie" and maybe it will start to sink in.

I don't know, it is just getting to me how much this thread has dissolved into a mommy war over who is allowed to call her baby a preemie and who isn't. I know that there is a mom here who has a daughter that was born at 25 weeks and spent months in the hospital and she tells people on the NICU forum that any time in the NICU "counts." It is still a terrible experience for the parent, no matter how long it lasts.

Thank you! You said it much better than I could.

My son was born at 35 weeks 6 days and was "premature" enough to require to be taken from me immediately after birth and be transfered to the Children's Hospital 30 miles away. Yes, he was close to term and less ill than many of the babies on the unit, but the 5 days he spent in the NICU were the scariest of my life. It really saddened me to read this thread and be told that my feelings aren't valid and that I should gloss over the issues relating to my sons prematurity because there are other babies worse off than he was.


----------



## jlovesl (Dec 19, 2008)

I am a mother of a premature baby. He was born at 31 weeks and was on cpap. His lungs and breathing skills were not developed. He spent 2 MONTHS in the NICU. He also needed to learn how to eat, breath and swallow at the same time. I hear the stories of how everyones babies are premature. Sorry 37 weeks and home in a couple days is not premature that is preterm and there are little or no risks to the baby coming at that time. It is not a fun club to be in. All the dreams of bringing home baby and tender moments that most Moms get to have a stripped from you. It's hard to cuddle a baby who has tubes and wires coming out from every limb. Not to mention the 100 nurses and doctors around you 24/7. You don't have the private intamate moments that most Moms get.


----------



## jlovesl (Dec 19, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Katzchen* 
Thank you! You said it much better than I could.

My son was born at 35 weeks 6 days and was "premature" enough to require to be taken from me immediately after birth and be transfered to the Children's Hospital 30 miles away. Yes, he was close to term and less ill than many of the babies on the unit, but the 5 days he spent in the NICU were the scariest of my life. It really saddened me to read this thread and be told that my feelings aren't valid and that I should gloss over the issues relating to my sons prematurity because there are other babies worse off than he was.

Your case is different. There was obviously something wrong with your little one to warrent a stay in the NICU. It's the comments from people who say my baby was born premature at 37 weeks but went home the next day. That is not premature that is preterm. 37 weeks is a very normal gestational age for a baby. Most babies born 37 weeks are perfectly healthy.


----------



## eilonwy (Apr 3, 2003)

Has anyone realized this thread is 3.5 YEARS old?


----------



## Doodlebugsmom (Aug 1, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *eilonwy* 
Has anyone realized this thread is 3.5 YEARS old?









When I received email notification that this thread had a reply, I was quite surprised!


----------



## tanyalynn (Jun 5, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *eilonwy* 
Has anyone realized this thread is 3.5 YEARS old?

Obviously you start threads that are meaningful to people and stand the test of time.


----------



## PTmorgan (Oct 23, 2007)

If nobody had replied to this old thread, I would not have had the opportunity to consider the difference in the terms. Thank you to whoever revived it!

Frankly, I'd never considered the difference between the two terms. Obviously, I have a very different viewpoint now. I'm very detail-oriented, and differences like this are important.

My heart goes out to hear all these mamas being separated from their babies. Thankfully, I haven't had to experience this.


----------



## eilonwy (Apr 3, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TanyaLopez* 
Obviously you start threads that are meaningful to people and stand the test of time.

















Way to placate my inner dork!


----------



## groovynaturemama (Mar 8, 2007)

i had a baby at 37 weeks, at home, and never considered her preterm or premature. i always thought 37 weeks was considered in the realm of being full term (at least that is what i've heard from several midwives and docs). she never had any problems that required a NICU, although she was rather jaundice, and sleepy. we were able to take care of that at home, however.


----------



## Pinoikoi (Oct 30, 2003)

ok- well, someone clarify for me then please..

my adopted ds was 34 weeks.. his inner organs worked fine and was not put in nicu, but was kept at the hospital for 3 days rather than 2 (for "observation").. his skin was overly sensitive to fibers, diaper changes would make him scream, so if skin is an "outer" organ? then does that make him "premature"?

My other son was 36 weeks, and he was fine from go.. so preterm?

To be honest, I have NEVER heard anyone medical personnel or no, use the word "preterm"... but hey, open to new ideas..


----------



## eilonwy (Apr 3, 2003)

Here's a place to find out:

Assessment of Gestational Age


----------



## Periwinkle (Feb 27, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alaskanteach* 
ok- well, someone clarify for me then please..

my adopted ds was 34 weeks.. his inner organs worked fine and was not put in nicu, but was kept at the hospital for 3 days rather than 2 (for "observation").. his skin was overly sensitive to fibers, diaper changes would make him scream, so if skin is an "outer" organ? then does that make him "premature"?

My other son was 36 weeks, and he was fine from go.. so preterm?

To be honest, I have NEVER heard anyone medical personnel or no, use the word "preterm"... but hey, open to new ideas..

Yes, both were preterm. And my suspicion is that 34 weeks is too early to be born without being premature in some way(s) - while not all premature babies need NICU time much less help breathing etc., virtually all of them will be different in important ways (early on I'm talking, though not necessarily later) from babies born full term. Your son born at 34 wks. is a great example of this experience.


----------



## AutumnAir (Jun 10, 2008)

I knew about this difference in meaning, but from the other end of things. My DD was born at 43+1 weeks, so she was post-dates or post-term, but NOT post-mature. The same way that it's possible for a 36 weeker to be pre-term but not premature.

I think one of the problems here is that everyone nowadays seems to consider 40 weeks as the ONLY time to have a baby. If you have a baby a week or two before that (even though it's considered 'term') then people talk about the baby coming early. And the pressure to 'get that baby out' starts at (or even before) 40 weeks, which is only about half-way through the 'term' period.

To me, the term 'premature' describes a baby, whatever their gestational age, who shows definite signs of not being fully developed, just as a post-mature baby is obviously 'over-cooked'. It is possible for a baby to be born 'at term' i.e. between 38-42 weeks and still be premature, or to be postmature. Though obviously the majority of premature babies are pre-term and the majority of postmature babies are post-term. However, I'd like to bet that if I'd had to have a C-section at 38 weeks, as seems to be the standard, my baby would have been premature, in that she would have had some definite signs of not being fully developed, since at 38 weeks she would have been taken out over 5 weeks before she was 'supposed' to be born.

Even with the wide range of 'term' there is an even wider range of normal for some people. Although the vast majority of babies are born between 38-42 weeks my baby was not one of them. But the reason she wasn't was not due to any specific problem - simply that longer was normal in that particular instance for her and for me.

Something which really bothers me is the rather cavalier attitude towards prematurity and its attendant problems which many medical professionals seem to have. As someone mentioned previously, they will not do anything to stop labour at 36 weeks (which, depending on which guidelines you use, is either a week or 2 weeks pre-term, from the earliest out-lying edge of 'term' ). However, on the other end of things, those same doctors will start pressuring a woman to accept induction shortly after 40 weeks and will usually never 'let' her get beyond 41 weeks, when she still has a week to be within the range of 'term'. So, 'term' is only loosely defined at the earlier end of things and 'no big deal' if it's out by a couple of weeks, but at the later end fewer and fewer women are actually being 'allowed' to finish out their pregnancies. It doesn't make sense to me..


----------



## lil_miss_understood (Jul 19, 2006)

Chalk me up as another one who didn't know the difference but appreciated the knowledge. Thanks.


----------



## pixiekisses (Oct 14, 2008)

Well, here, the definition of a premature baby is a baby born before 37+0 weeks.
No matter if they are healthy or not, they are preemies.
So it depends where you are from I guess.
Because of that preterm is only those born between 37+0 and 40+1 weeks.
40+2 is term.
Postterm is after 40+2 weeks.


----------



## felix23 (Nov 7, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *liss_420* 
i had a baby at 37 weeks, at home, and never considered her preterm or premature. i always thought 37 weeks was considered in the realm of being full term (at least that is what i've heard from several midwives and docs). she never had any problems that required a NICU, although she was rather jaundice, and sleepy. we were able to take care of that at home, however.


I just had my second dd at 37 weeks and I also don't consider her preterm or premature. She was on the small side and most likely if things hadn't had gone down hill with my pregnancy she would have not been born for a couple more weeks, but she didn't have any problems that needed the NICU. She was and still is rather sleeply, but that is about it.


----------



## Periwinkle (Feb 27, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pixiekisses* 
Well, here, the definition of a premature baby is a baby born before 37+0 weeks.
No matter if they are healthy or not, they are preemies.
So it depends where you are from I guess.
Because of that preterm is only those born between 37+0 and 40+1 weeks.
40+2 is term.
Postterm is after 40+2 weeks.

With respect, it doesn't really matter "where you're from." What matters is human biology, which is pretty consistent from one place to the next, lol. A preterm baby is <37 weeks (some argue more like 38) but whether or not it is medically premature depends on how developed the baby is.

And I'm cracking up at the definition of preterm vs. postterm. Looks like you gotta hit your date head on otherwise your baby where you are is defined as preterm OR postterm. You said < 40+2 is preterm and more than 40+2 is postterm. Huh???

In fact, I'd bet there's not a NICU or an OB in the world who actually thinks THIS rigidly - all jokes and cliches about them notwithstanding.


----------



## boscopup (Jul 15, 2005)

My first baby was definitely premature (29w4d), but second baby was 36w6d, born out of hospital, and I consider him full term, even though he was technically one day shy of it. Close enough for me.









He *did* have some preemie tendencies... extra sleepiness, jaundice, nursing issues... but he was average newborn size of 7 lbs 4 oz, had perfect APGARs, was very healthy from the get-go. I'd rather him have cooked an extra week, but he just had others ideas.


----------



## Amylcd (Jun 16, 2005)

I suppose my DD was both. Born at 36 weeks at a normal weight, but had severe lung issues (and still does). My DD has many more issues than a friends child who was born at 29 weeks. So, although her child was born much earlier than my DD, my DD has had many more health issues and has spent more time in the hospital due to being born early.

The 29 weeker spent 3 weeks total in the NICU, to basically grow. He has shown absolutely no signs of being premature, and now at 2 his mom said he is in the 95th percentile for both height and weight (for his birth age, not adjusted!). DD on the other hand is still struggling and has permanent damage from her lungs being so underdeveloped.


----------



## trini (Sep 20, 2005)

I'm glad I came across this thread. Perhaps I can have dh read it when he makes another comment about ds being "premature" because I had a c-section at 37w6d.


----------



## TzippityDoulah (Jun 29, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaE* 
Well, my baby girl was post-term (if that's a word!)







That said, I honestly did not know the distinction between premature and preterm, and I consider myself to be pretty well-educated/well-read (even neurotic!) about all things pregnancy, baby, toddler... I am willing to bet many others also don't know the real distinction - perhaps?

yeah, that. honestly... I never really thought about it. but you're completely right - that is a very important difference! I understand the difference of course, but i probably would have used the same word and noted that the baby was sick or not sick etc... (of course I don't consider 37 weeks preterm exactly... but that's a whole other topic heh)


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

I think one of the problems with not distinguishing pre "term" from pre "mature" is when a baby is born at term, but isn't actually ready to be born. Then the parents fight with the NICU stay and all the problems of prematurity, but when they share that the baby was born at 40 weeks, they get no sympathy.

Speaking as someone with a baby who was both postterm and had signs of postmaturity.


----------



## caitryn (Aug 18, 2005)

My little boy was considered premature. After all, he was a complete surprise when he came at 33 weeks 6 days. He he perfect APGARs, passed his hearing tests early, and everything was fine other than being small. The only way you could really tell he was a preemie was the lack of body fat, still extremely "hairy," and his size. He was born on a Monday and out on Wednesday (normal at that hospital for a full term baby). He did have jaundice, which even full term babies can have, and at least one if not a few more episodes with sleep apnea. Other than that, he was perfectly fine. He's now around the 50th percentile or a little more for his age (4 months).

I just count us as really lucky. Part of me does wonder, however, if the docs just didn't get my due date right.


----------



## eilonwy (Apr 3, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sapphire_chan* 
I think one of the problems with not distinguishing pre "term" from pre "mature" is when a baby is born at term, but isn't actually ready to be born. Then the parents fight with the NICU stay and all the problems of prematurity, but when they share that the baby was born at 40 weeks, they get no sympathy.

I know I mentioned it upthread because it's a pet peeve of mine, but given that it's more than three years old I suppose it's easy to have missed. This is all the more reason for distinguishing between "term" and "maturity." Not all babies born at 34 weeks will be premature (most will, but not all), but they are all preterm. Not all babies born at 40 weeks will be mature (most will, but not all); They're term, but premature. In most of those cases, gestational age is adjusted after birth to reflect the prematurity.


----------



## Periwinkle (Feb 27, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *caitryn* 
My little boy was considered premature. After all, he was a complete surprise when he came at 33 weeks 6 days. He he perfect APGARs, passed his hearing tests early, and everything was fine other than being small. The only way you could really tell he was a preemie was the lack of body fat, still extremely "hairy," and his size. He was born on a Monday and out on Wednesday (normal at that hospital for a full term baby). He did have jaundice, which even full term babies can have, and at least one if not a few more episodes with sleep apnea. Other than that, he was perfectly fine. He's now around the 50th percentile or a little more for his age (4 months).

I just count us as really lucky. Part of me does wonder, however, if the docs just didn't get my due date right.

Wow. I'm amazed they let him go after just 2 days. It's wild what differences there are around the country. From your description, he definitely sounds premature and the apnea can be really scary though thank God wasn't in his case. Developmentally, is he tracking on time? Smile at 3 weeks, roll over at 6 weeks or whatever (it's funny how quickly you forget those timeframes when you don't have babies in the house anymore!). I think it's helpful to be aware of corrected age especially for things like introducing solids and expectations on sleeping, to name a couple.


----------



## bmcneal (Nov 12, 2006)

Before this thread, I had never heard the term "preterm". I never brought up that DD was not term, but when people asked about her size, I said she was a month early. DD was born at 35+5, she was 5#12, very little, hardly any body fat, etc. She was very sleepy, and we had a really hard time waking her up to eat. She never did really learn to latch on, and lost almost a pound, not making it back to her birth weight until 2.5 months old. My OB said she was premature, but she never spent any time in NICU. She was so little, her thigh was probably only twice the size of my thumb. "Preemie" clothes were way too big on her. I don't know if she would qualify as "premature" or "preterm" or what, but even if she *did* fit either/both of those terms, I don't think of having a premature baby as something to *strive* for, or a club that I would *want* to be in. Whether or not she, at birth, could have been described as premature or preterm, I would *much* rather her have had the amount of time *she* needed, be it a few more days, a few more weeks, or even a month.

JMO just because a baby stays in the NICU doesn't make them a premature baby, and just because they don't, doesn't mean they aren't. I may be wrong, but I don't think it's fair for one to say "My baby was in the NICU, so I have a preemie, but your baby didn't, so you don't/didn't." (I may be wrong, as I'm not a professional, but that's just my opinion and understanding.)


----------



## Debstmomy (Jun 1, 2004)

I have not read all through this thread, but I do think that preterm is a realitivly new term, whereas all babies born before their edd were consisdered premature. KWIM I first heard of The Preterm Infant at a CE that I took in 2007. I had not heard of it before then.


----------



## eilonwy (Apr 3, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Debstmomy* 
I have not read all through this thread, but I do think that preterm is a realitivly new term, whereas all babies born before their edd were consisdered premature. KWIM I first heard of The Preterm Infant at a CE that I took in 2007. I had not heard of it before then.

I started this thread in 2004. The term had been around for some time *then*.


----------



## caitryn (Aug 18, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Periwinkle* 
Wow. I'm amazed they let him go after just 2 days. It's wild what differences there are around the country. From your description, he definitely sounds premature and the apnea can be really scary though thank God wasn't in his case. Developmentally, is he tracking on time? Smile at 3 weeks, roll over at 6 weeks or whatever (it's funny how quickly you forget those timeframes when you don't have babies in the house anymore!). I think it's helpful to be aware of corrected age especially for things like introducing solids and expectations on sleeping, to name a couple.

He has done everything as if he were born at 40 weeks. In fact, his first smile came soon after he was born. He rolled from tummy to back for the first time at 3 months. He coos and has just recently become interested in toys. He held his head up on time. He advanced to supported sitter sometime during his second month. I actually haven't had to apply the additional 6 weeks gestation to any of his milestones. His pediatrician doesn't do that anymore, either. The only person who does that is the nutritionist at the WIC office when she takes his weight and length. (Strangely, he's big for 2.5 month old but middle of the road for a 4 month old... and he is a 4 month old.) My mom said I was the same way, as was she, when we came 6 weeks early, too.


----------



## 77589 (Mar 7, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lilyka* 
it is like people are so enraptured with preemies an they go around wearing it like a badge of honor when there babies were only a week or two early and use thier adjusted age . . . it is weird for me. Itis like they think it makes thier baby extra special and dpecial in all the ways each baby is special just isn't good enough. They want them to be in the preemie club. If they only knew how much that club sucked to belong to.

Exactly. I know people in their twenties who still want to talk about how they were premies..... Their parents obviously made it into a huge deal and part of their lives. I never want DD1 to be like that, premie sucks, NICU sucks, and anyone that knows that wants to put it as far behind them as possible. I don't really want her to know what her birth was attached to, I'm sure she'll ask one day but I don't want it to scare her, she'll probably never want to have kids.

my SIL's DS2 was term but premie, she didn't think anything of it when he went to NICU cause he was big and looked mostly healthy. Then a nurse pulled her aside and told her he was the sickest baby in the lot and this was very serious. If I remember right it was his lungs, but that was before I joined the family so I could have the story wrong.


----------

