Hellobee Boards

I just saw this advertised at my midwifes office- had never heard of it before. I looked online briefly and it looks like it's marketed more towards women who haven't had a baby, where the mirena still says it's ideal for women who have already had a baby. And it's good for 3 years vs 5 for mirena (which if you want a second within that time, doesn't matter). I am planning to just ask about the difference when I get closer to the end of my current pregnancy but since this is my last, I would probably go with mirena just for the 5 years instead of 3.

Curious to learn more though.

I have a Skyla IUD. I chose it over the Mirena because I never dilated during childbirth and because I thought we'd have a second within 3 years. The insertion was painless, just a little uncomfortable, like a Pap smear.

@sapphire: @Applesandbananas: that explains so much - I had a scheduled c-section and having mirena inserted was horribly painful for me!

@Foodnerd81: no, everyone's uterus shrinks down after birth. It's more the diameter of the device.

In my opinion the skyla and Mirena are basically the same but the skyla is a marketing ploy to convince people of some benefit so that they end up with an IUD that needs replacement at 3 yrs rather than 5 and therefore the drug company makes more money. Not to mention restarting the clock on when a generic can come out. My understanding is the insertion device is essentially the same as the mirena - both devices are small. That's my two cents anyhow and I haven't read the fine details on the skyla (clearly I should so I can have a stronger argument!). But I suppose I'm all for more reasons for people to get an IUD!