Report Highlights Risk of Mirena Migration and Removal in Pregnant Women

May 24, 2014
by Adler Markoff & Associates

Request A Free Consultation

(405) 607-8757

    Report Highlights Risk of Mirena Migration and Removal in Pregnant Women

    Serious concerns have been raised among medical professionals about the risks associated with removing a Mirena intrauterine device (IUD) if a woman becomes pregnant after the birth control device migrates outside the uterus. Although Mirena has increased in popularity in recent years, a number of women have reported experiencing major complications in situations where the birth control device perforated the uterine wall and migrated outside the uterus to other parts of the body. In some cases of Mirena migration, women may suffer from infection or other serious side effects, often causing permanent injuries and requiring surgical removal. If you have experienced a severe complication that you believe to be related to Bayer’s Mirena birth control device, consult our reputable lawyers at AMA Law today.


    The Mirena IUD is a long-acting form of birth control manufactured by Bayer Healthcare and introduced in the United States in 2000. The small T-shaped device is inserted into the uterus as a means of pregnancy prevention, and is designed to remain in place for up to five years. A new case study published by the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology on February 25, details the surgical removal of a Mirena birth control device that moved into the abdomen of a woman who was 12 weeks pregnant. Although the surgical procedure was a success overall, the doctors involved in the case study indicated that the decision to retrieve the device remains controversial in light of the potential risks associated with Mirena removal.


    “With a properly placed IUD and a viable uterine pregnancy, it is recommended to remove the IUD if possible to prevent complications such as septic abortion and preterm labor,” the doctors wrote in the report. “In our case, it was unclear whether removal was necessary during pregnancy. Removal during pregnancy would prevent possible complications of hormone exposure and foreign body. Leaving it in-situ and removal at the time of cesarean or thereafter would prevent the complications of surgery during pregnancy.” The doctors involved indicated that they were concerned about infection, adhesion formation and organ injury associated with the migration of the device.


    Bayer has faced a growing number of product liability lawsuits related to its Mirena IUD device, filed on behalf of women who claim that the manufacturer failed to adequately warn consumers about the risk of “spontaneous” migration, where the device may perforate the uterus long after it was initially implanted. The Mirena label does warn patients about the risk of perforation, but plaintiffs argue that the language suggests that these problems only occur during insertion, not years afterward. If you used a Mirena IUD and you have since suffered from a major side effect like migration leading to infection or permanent injuries, contact our knowledgeable attorneys at AMA Law to discuss your possible compensation options.

    Request a free consultation

    (405) 607-8757