Close this search box.
Close this search box.

Medical Studies Illuminate Dangers of IUDs, Including Paragard

By Rheingold Giuffra Ruffo Plotkin & Hellman LLP

The most common form of contraception, Intrauterine Devices (IUD), has been proven to cause dangerous outcomes in users. Medical studies have proven that unfavorable consequences may occur as a result of using IUDs. These outcomes such as perforations and infection often lead to lawsuits for manufacturing companies. Women who have suffered from these problems may be eligible for compensation.


While many didn’t believe that IUDs could result in these adverse effects, Uterine Perforation with IUDs was first recognized in the 1930s.[1]  Common belief is that the intrauterine device is forced into or through the uterine wall at the time of insertion resulting in perforation. Studies have shown that there are two different types of perforations – immediate traumatic perforation and later “secondary” perforation caused by gradual erosion.

A higher risk of IUD perforation was found in women who had the device inserted within the first 6 months after delivery.[2] Additionally, studies show that individuals who utilized copper-releasing IUDs experienced perforation at a higher rate. Women who are interested in intrauterine devices should be aware of the possible complications of implanting devices. Women need to be especially careful with choosing who inserts these devices as it has been proven that “more perforations were seen in insertions by junior doctors or general practitioners than by experienced gynecologists”[3]


Perforation causes significant pain and tenderness to women who have experienced it. While the perforation, in some instances, may heal itself, it may also lead to hemorrhage or sepsis. In some cases, uterine perforation is asymptomatic therefore it is important to check the strings after placement.

In certain cases, hysteroscopies and/or laparoscopies needed to be taken in order to resolve the migrated and perforated IUDs. These procedures may be costly and leave long-lasting effects on patients.

[1] Andrews CJ. MIGRATING GRAFENBERG CONTRACEPTION RING. JAMA. 1936;107(4):279. doi:10.1001/jama.1936.92770300002009a

[2] Sun, X., Xue, M., Deng, X. et al. Clinical characteristic and intraoperative findings of uterine perforation patients in using of intrauterine devices (IUDs). Gynecol Surg 15, 3 (2018).

[3] Rowlands, S., Oloto, E., & Horwell, D. H. (2016). Intrauterine devices and risk of uterine perforation: current perspectives. Open access journal of contraception7, 19–32.

Related Posts