Oh, you have the smaller sized Nova T then? This has less copper in it (200 mm^2) and hence a shorter lifespan. I have the Paragard T380A which was recently extended from a 10 year lifespan to 12 year. The drawback is that it is larger and less comfortable for us nullipara women.
The hormonal ones have a shorter lifespan because once they run out of their impregnated dosage of progestins they become ineffective. With the copper ones, the copper does gradually dissolve, and aging IUDs can eventually have issues with structural breakage. There have been research studies indicating that most copper IUDs have an actual lifespan several years beyond the official policy determined lifespan.
Besides the discomfort, you really don't want to reinsert a new IUD sooner than necessary. Every time you open the cervix and insert an IUD, there is the risk of introducing sepsis (leading to PID) in the normally sterile uterus. This is the main reason reason to not routinely swap IUDs out before the end of the device lifespan, assuming one wants to continue using this method of contraception.
There are a few factors. One big thing I kept hearing about from concerned friends and family members was the Dalkon Shield fiasco. Additionally, concerns over hormone safety are a lot lower in the US than they are in Europe. I think they are too low, frankly.
While I have no facts to back this up, I think the biggest reason that IUDs are discouraged in favor of hormonal methods is money. Monthly prescriptions for hormonal contraceptives are a lot more profitable. A secondary reason is that many providers are not trained to do insertions.




Reply With Quote
