Dear June,
       You list twins as:
       "born 29/40 gestation, now 37/1/40 gestation."  Perhaps it's because I
am not an RN, but I am confused by this notation.  My first thought was that
one twin was born at 29 weeks, but the other twin managed to stay in the womb
until 40 weeks.  (Rare, but not impossible).  Then I thought perhaps there was
twin-to-twin transfusion, so one baby was much more developed than the other,
though I don't know if it is ever determined how far behind the smaller twin
is in such situations.  But this didn't really seem right when I got to the
part where you said they both now weigh the same, because the larger twin should
have kept growing and also would have been more than 40 weeks, unless it's
common practice to only "age" the premie and just keep using "40" to indicate a
baby was born full-term?  Then I thought maybe you just meant both twins were
born at 29 weeks out of a preferred 40 weeks gestation.  Could you clarify
please?
       Thanks.
       Dee

Dee Kassing, BS, MLS, IBCLC
Collinsville, Illinois, in central USA

             ***********************************************

To temporarily stop your subscription: set lactnet nomail
To start it again: set lactnet mail (or digest)
To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
All commands go to [log in to unmask]

The LACTNET mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software together with L-Soft's LSMTP(TM)
mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html