Bulking Agents for Urinary and Fecal Incontinence

  • Michele Pennisi
  • Antonio Luigi PastoreEmail author
  • Filippo La Torre
Part of the Urodynamics, Neurourology and Pelvic Floor Dysfunctions book series (UNPFD)


The incidence of SUI after radical prostatectomy has been reported to range from 8% to 47% [1–4], whereas the incidence of SUI after benign prostatic surgery has been reported to be 0.5% [5]. When conservative treatment fails, surgical treatment should be considered. AUS is considered the gold standard treatment for male SUI, with a success rate ranging from 59% to 90% and a patient satisfaction rate of 76% [6, 7]. However, the revision rate for AUS is relatively high (20% to 29%) owing to infection, urethral erosion, and mechanical failure [6, 7]. Compared with AUS, a male sling operation has several advantages, including the absence of mechanical problems, no need for device training, immediate efficacy, and an overall reduced revision rate. The success rate of a male sling operation ranges from 54% to 83% [8, 9]. However, urinary retention, erosion, infection, system dislocation, and persistent pain are possible complications of a male sling operation, whereas technical difficulty is another problem in patients who have undergone radical pelvic surgery [10].



We thank Diego Coletta, Norma Depalma, and Ilaria Clementi for contributing to the realization of this chapter.


  1. 1.
    Shamliyan T, Wyman J, Ping R, et al. Male urinary incontinence: prevalence, risk factors, and preventive interventions. Rev Urol. 2009;11:145–65.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kundu S, Roehl K, Eggener S, et al. Potency, continence and complications in 3,477 consecutive radical retropubic prostatectomies. J Urol. 2004;172:2227–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kim JC, Cho KJ. Current trends in the management of post-prostatectomy incontinence. Korean J Urol. 2012;53:511–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Begg C, Riedel E, Bach P, et al. Variations in morbidity after radical prostatectomy. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:1138–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rassweiler J, Teber D, Kuntz R, et al. Complications of transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP)-incidence, management, and prevention. Eur Urol. 2006;50:969–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gousse AE, Madjar S, Lambert MM, Fishman IJ. Artificial urinary sphincter for post-radical prostatectomy urinary incontinence: long-term subjective results. J Urol. 2001;166:1755–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Trigo Rocha F, Gomes CM, Mitre AI, Arap S, Srougi M. A prospective study evaluating the efficacy of the artificial sphincter AMS 800 for the treatment of post radical prostatectomy urinary incontinence and the correlation between preoperative urodynamic and surgical outcomes. Urology. 2008;71:85–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cornel EB, Elzevier HW, Putter H. Can advance transobturator sling suspension cure male urinary postoperative stress incontinence? J Urol. 2010;183:1459–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hübner WA, Gallistl H, Rutkowski M, Huber ER. Adjustable bulbourethral male sling: experience after 101 cases of moderate-to-severe male stress urinary incontinence. BJU Int. 2011;107:777–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Elsergany R, Ghoniem GM. Collagen injection for intrinsic sphincteric deficiency in men: a reasonable option in selected patients. J Urol. 1998;159:1504–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Westney OL, Bevan-Thomas R, Palmer JL, Cespedes RD, McGuire EJ. Transurethral collagen injections for male intrinsic sphincter deficiency: the University of Texas-Houston experience. J Urol. 2005;174:994–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Malizia AA Jr, Reiman HM, Myers RP, Sande JR, Barham SS, Benson RC Jr, et al. Migration and granulomatous reaction after periurethral injection of polytef (Teflon). JAMA. 1984;251:3277–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Faerber GJ, Richardson TD. Long-term results of transurethral collagen injection in men with intrinsic sphincter deficiency. J Endourol. 1997;11:273–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cespedes RD. Collagen injection or artificial sphincter for post-prostatectomy incontinence: collagen. Urology. 2000;55:5–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Aboseif SR, O’Connell HE, Usui A, McGuire EJ. Collagen injection for intrinsic sphincter deficiency in men. J Urol. 1996;155:10–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cummings JM, Boullier JA, Parra RO. Transurethral collagen injections in the therapy of post-radical prostatectomy incontinence. J Urol. 1996;155:1011–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Griebling TL, Kreder KJ, Williams RD. Transurethral collagen injection for treatment of post prostatectomy incontinence in men. Urology. 1997;49:907–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Stothers L, Goldenberg SL. Delayed hypersensitivity and systemic arthralgia following transurethral collagen injection for stress urinary incontinence. J Urol. 1998;159:1507–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Santarosa RP, Blaivas JG. Periurethral injection of autologous fat for the treatment of sphincteric incontinence. J Urol. 1994;151:607–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kylmala T, Tainio H, Raitanen M, Tammela TL. Treatment of postoperative male urinary incontinence using transurethral macroplastique injections. J Endourol. 2003;17:113–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cummings JM, Boullier JA, Parra RO. Transurethral collagen injections in the therapy of post-radical prostatectomy stress incontinence. J Urol. 1996;155:1011–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Klutke JJ, Subir C, Andriole G, Klutke CG. Long-term results after antegrade collagen injection for stress urinary incontinence following radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology. 1999;53:974–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Martins FE, Bennett CJ, Dunn M, Filho D, Keller T, Lieskovsky G. Adverse prognostic features of collagen injection therapy for urinary incontinence following radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol. 1997;158:1745–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Colombo T, Augustin H, Breinl E, Schips L, Hubmer G. The use of polydimethylsiloxane in the treatment of incontinence after radical prostatectomy. Br J Urol. 1997;80:923–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bridges MD, Petrou SP, Lightner DJ. Urethral bulking agents: imaging review. Am J Roentgenol. 2005;185(1):257–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lightner DJ. Review of the available urethral bulking agents. Curr Opin Urol. 2002;12:333–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sweat SD, Lightner DJ. Complications of sterile abscess formation and pulmonary embolism following periurethral bulking agents. J Urol. 1999;161:93–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    McKinney CD, Gaffey MJ, Gillenwater JY. Bladder outlet obstruction after multiple periurethral polytetrafluoroethylene injections. J Urol. 1995;153:149–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hartanto VH, Lightner DJ, Nitti VW. Endoscopic evacuation of Durasphere. Urology. 2003;62:135–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Van Kerrebroeck P, ter Meulen F, Larsson G, Farrelly E, Edwall L, Fianu-Jonasson A. Efficacy and safety of a novel system (NASHA/dx copolymer using the Implacer device) for treatment of stress urinary incontinence. Urology. 2004;64:276–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    ter Meulen PH, Berghmans LC, van Kerrebroeck PE. Systematic review: efficacy of silicone microimplants (Macroplastique) therapy for stress urinary incontinence in adult women. Eur Urol. 2003;44:573–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Pannek J, Brands FH, Senge T. Particle migration after transurethral injection of carbon coated beads for stress urinary incontinence. J Urol. 2001;166:1350–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Solomon LZ, Birch BR, Cooper AJ, Davies CL, Holmes SA. Nonhomologous bioinjectable materials in urology: ‘size matters’? BJU Int. 2000;85:641–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Watson NF, et al. Color Dis. 2012;14(Suppl 3):29–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Guerra F, La Torre M, Giuliani G, Coletta D, Amore Bonapasta S, Velluti F, et al. Long-term evaluation of bulking agents for the treatment of fecal incontinence: clinical outcomes and ultrasound evidence. Tech Coloproctol. 2015;19:23–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hussain ZI, Lim M, Stojkovic SG. Systematic review of perianal implants in the treatment of fecal incontinence. Br J Surg. 2011;98:1526–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Morris OJ, Smith S, Draganic B. Comparison of bulking agents in the treatment of faecal incontinence: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Tech Coloproctol. 2013;17:517–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ratto C, Buntzen S, Aigner F, Altomare DF, Heydari A, Donisi L, Lundby L, Parello A. Multicentre observational study of the Gatekeeper for faecal incontinence. Br J Surg. 2016;103:290–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Al-Ozaibi L, Kazim Y, Hazim W, Al-Mazroui A, Al-Badri F. The Gatekeeper™ for fecal incontinence: another trial and error. Int J Surg Case Rep. 2014;5:936–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    de la Portilla F, Reyes-Díaz ML, Maestre MV, Jiménez-Rodríguez RM, García-Cabrera AM, Vázquez-Monchul JM, Díaz-Pavón JM, Padillo-Ruiz FC. Ultrasonographic evidence of Gatekeeper™ prosthesis migration in patients treated for faecal incontinence: a case series. Int J Color Dis. 2017;32(3):437–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michele Pennisi
    • 1
  • Antonio Luigi Pastore
    • 1
    Email author
  • Filippo La Torre
    • 2
  1. 1.Urology Unit, Department of Medico-Surgical Sciences and Biotechnologies, Faculty of Pharmacy and MedicineSapienza University of RomeLatinaItaly
  2. 2.Colorectal and Pelvic Surgery Unit Emergency Department“Sapienza” Rome UniversityRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations