Is "catching up"a myth?

[jennchsm]

On many of the preemie boards I've participated in, that's a big question: How long before my preemie "catches up"? I've carefully adjusted DS's age all along, and still do. He's technically almost 22 months old, but he's really 19.5 months. When he turns two, I plan to stop adjusting, but lately I'm starting to think about what it all means.

The thing is, I don't believe that "catching up" really happens. I think that what really happens is that the number of weeks a child was premature is eventually contained within a standard deviation of the mean of normal development. In other words, at some point in their development, the 10 weeks (or whatever) a child was early doesn't matter any more, and you can't tell if an advance or delay is due to their prematurity or is just part of their natural developmental curve.

Just because DS was born 10 weeks early doesn't mean he magically jumped ahead of where he would have been otherwise. His body had to do some things early, and yes, that had an impact on his cognitive development, but I have yet to see any evidence that it just starts kids on their developmental path 10 (or however many) weeks earlier.

Thoughts?

[Bokonon]

I believe that's why they say the catching up happens by age 2, because the weeks of difference kind of even out with the "normal" timeframe of milestones by that age.

[sbrinton]

I have seen our 31 weeker do some actual "catching up". At 8 months (6 months adjusted), we had him evaluated and he was at 7 months intellectually/verbally and 5 months for motor skills. Four months later at just about a year, he has nearly caught up to his actual age. He is still small (even for his adjusted age) but he is doing nearly everything his brothers did at 12 months. He has progressed really rapidly in the last month or two from just rolling to sitting, crawling, pulling up and starting to cruise around. So I think there is something to the "catching up".

[jennchsm]

Originally Posted by sbrinton

I have seen our 31 weeker do some actual "catching up". At 8 months (6 months adjusted), we had him evaluated and he was at 7 months intellectually/verbally and 5 months for motor skills. Four months later at just about a year, he has nearly caught up to his actual age. He is still small (even for his adjusted age) but he is doing nearly everything his brothers did at 12 months. He has progressed really rapidly in the last month or two from just rolling to sitting, crawling, pulling up and starting to cruise around. So I think there is something to the "catching up".

How do you know he's not just advanced for his age, though? The behavior you describe is well within the range of normal for a baby of that age. In fact, my sister's FT baby started sitting up independently at 9 months, crawling at 13 months, and walking at 15 months, all of which are on the late end of normal, but not unusual. If her DS had been born 2 months early, he'd be right on track to be on the mean for those skills.

I guess that's my question, really, and maybe there isn't an answer because you'll never know what your baby's developmental curve would have been if they were FT. And maybe it has a lot to do with our perceptions of our children as preemies, and our expectations of what has happened with other children or as well. It seems hard to tease all of that out.

[MomtoAshlee]

I think it is just a figure. DD was 11 weeks early. She rolled over at 7 months, crawled at 9 months, and walked at 16 months. When she was tested by EI at 14 months old, they did not even adjust for prematurity and she was on target and even above her age on some areas. I just see it as DD was growing and doing things like normal, even if she was born FT or not. As long as she is healthly, I don't care if it is catching up, advanced, or normal.

[aris99]

I think "catching up" means different things for different kids. My dd showed definite signs of hearing loss and cerebral palsy (spastic quadriplegia) in her early months. She was born at 26 weeks. She was 11 mos before she could even move and she didn't sit up until long after she could rigidly pull herself into standing position. But at about 12 mos she started tottering and at 13 mos she was walking...just like that! I think that some "rewiring" is possible and that maybe this is what can give the appearance of a preemie or micro preemie "catching up". My dd will be 4 next month. Her hearing is acute and she can run as fast as her 6 yo brother. There are still signs of cp here and there but you wouldn't notice it unless you knew what to look for. I don't think she "caught up" I think her brain compensated...not quite the same in my dd's case.

[OGirlieMama]

Most neos and dev peds we've seen said that "catching up" is a misnomer, and it means exactly what you said - they hit a point where 11 weeks (in our case) just isn't that big a difference. Usually that is around 2 years of age. Every kid varies, and preemies can be ahead of their adjusted age milestones just the same way FT kids can, so it's really hard to say what's "catching up" and what's a kid who would be ahead regardless of gestational age at birth.

I find that many people in my life who talk about preemies "catching up" are giving the subtle message that "see, everything turned out OK - get over it already."

[Amys1st]

Maggie (who is 3 1/2 now) did all her milestones at her adjusted age and/or at her actual. She grabbed for solids at 7 mos, sat up around the same time. She came home and by her edd, she was rolling all over the place. It became a game for FIL when he came over- lets play roll over baby....

She walked at 12 mos adjusted almost to the day, but started talking a bit later than we would have liked. She had about 6 mos of speech therapy and then one day started talking and literally has not stopped since.

I was told by several nicu graduates, some preemies are tall. Maggie has several times been asked if she is in kindergarden? Or she is starting next year? No, not for two more years!

We love now that people cannot believe she was a preemie. Her preschool teacher was floored when we said she was a preemie.

[skybluepink02]

The PT told me that at around two, there's not much difference between a two year old, and a two years and 10 week old. The milestones that they need to hit are not as bunched up as they are in the first year, so it's harder to see any delays due to prematurity.

This is based on prematurity being the only "problem". If there are significant physical or mental disabilities caused by prematurity, then the "catch-up" won't happen as described.

[justmama]

I think there are some things that never are "fixed" with time. There are some kids who just never adjust and are "normal" with regards to nervous system functioning and sensory issues. And in my experience, micro preemies aren't the only ones affected. Could it be a coincidence? Sure. But I don't think so. My 34 weeker is almost 5 and has sensory and oral issues. My 33 weeker is almost 2 and has similar issues. So I don't think that some prematurity issues are solved with time and the kids "catch-up."

[Momma2Gianna]

I don't think it's a "myth" per se. Of course, you'll never know when your child hit certain milestones if they had been born FT, but then again, parents of FTers never know when their kid would have hit certain milestones if they had been preemie.

My 33 weeker, looking back at her growth charts and milestones after her first birthday, had a huge growth spurt between 6 and 9 months, and was hitting all the 12 month milestones, and then some. It could have been that she would have been advanced had she been born on time, but we'll never know.