- Migration within or outside the uterus (116 cases)
- Patient Incompatibly (113 cases)
- Device operating improperly or differently than expected (73 cases)
- Repositioning (46 cases)
- Breakage (37 cases)
Is Essure the Evil Twin of the Mirena IUD?
The lawsuits being filed by women nationwide, who have suffered serious side effects from the Mirena IUD, are well publicized, especially by law firms involved in the litigation. The device marketed by the pharmaceutical giant Bayer Healthcare has been blamed for injuries and other issues, due mainly from the migration of the implanted device. There is, however, another IUD marketed by Bayer called Essure that is producing claims of serious complications and injury very similar to the Mirena. The Essure intra-uterine device first appeared on the market 13 years ago and was accepted widely by women who did not want to have additional children. Due to the reported complications mirroring the Mirena IUD, Essure is now under FDA investigation. So the question lies, is Essure the evil twin of the Mirena IUD? The FDA gave the device a quick green light back in 2002 because it was considered a safe method of sterilization without surgery. The device is simply planted into the uterus and fallopian tubes and the buildup of a mucous barrier prevents the traveling of sperm to the eggs, preventing conception. Over the next 11 years, since the introduction of Essure, there were 943 reported side effects by women. Pain was the leading complaint followed by hemorrhaging, headaches, irregular bleeding, fatigue and weight gain. Complications were also reported which were the same as those reported with the Mirena IUD. These numbered as follows: