Skip to main content

Durasphere — Pyrolytic Carbon-Coated Zirconium Oxide Beads

Durasphere (Carbon Medical Technologies, St. Paul, MN) is a nonbiodegradable, particulate urethral bulking agent of pyrolytic carbon-coated zirconium oxide beads suspended in a beta-glucan polysaccharide carrier. FDA-approved September 13, 1999 — the first non-collagen urethral bulking agent.[1][2]

Composition & Material Properties​

  • Active: spherical pyrolytic carbon-coated zirconium oxide beads (carbon surface over a zirconium oxide core).[1]
  • Carrier: beta-glucan polysaccharide hydrogel (water-soluble, biodegradable).
  • Particle size: 212–500 μm in the original formulation — well above the 80 μm threshold considered necessary to prevent phagocytosis / migration.[1]
  • Durasphere EXP: reformulated smaller beads (90–212 μm) developed to address injection difficulty while staying above 80 μm.[3]
  • Nonbiodegradable, non-immunogenic (no skin testing required), tissue nonreactive.[2]
  • Radiopaque — zirconium oxide core visible on plain film / CT.

Mechanism​

Submucosal injection deposits beads that produce immediate periurethral volume expansion and improve coaptation. The beta-glucan carrier is absorbed; beads become encapsulated by fibrous tissue and persist long-term, increasing urethral resistance during rises in abdominal pressure.[1][4]

Injection Technique​

Transurethral, cystoscopic guidance:[2][4]

  • Anesthesia: local (periurethral lidocaine); sedation or GA optional.
  • Setting: office / outpatient; ~30 minutes.
  • Delivery: prepackaged 1.0 mL syringes with an 18-gauge needle.
  • Volume: mean 3.2–6.0 mL per session — less than collagen (6.23 mL, p < 0.05).[2][4]
  • Sessions: mean 1.52–1.69 sessions to maximum benefit.

Injection difficulty with the original large-bead formulation prompted Madjar's modified technique:[4]

  • Single needle stick at the 4 o'clock position.
  • Hydrodissection with 1.5 mL of 1% lidocaine into the submucosa before bead injection.
  • Gradual withdrawal / advancement or rotation when resistance is noted.
  • Hold needle in place for 10 seconds after coaptation to prevent bead leakage.
  • Excellent or good coaptation achieved in 92% of injections with this technique.

Indications​

Female SUI due to intrinsic sphincter deficiency (ALPP < 100 cmH₂O cohort in the pivotal trial). Suited to:[4][5]

  • ISD with a non-hypermobile, well-supported urethra.
  • Patients who wish to avoid more invasive surgery.
  • Elderly / medically unfit.
  • Recurrent SUI after failed prior anti-incontinence surgery (32.6% in Madjar series).

Clinical Efficacy​

Pivotal RCT (Lightner 2001) — Durasphere vs Contigen​

Multicenter, randomized, double-blind, n = 355 with ISD:[2]

  • ≥ 1 Stamey-grade improvement at 12 mo: 80.3% (49/61) vs 69.1% (47/68 Contigen) — p = 0.162 (NS).
  • Less volume: 4.83 mL vs 6.23 mL (p < 0.05).
  • Mean pad weight change at 12 mo: NS.

Second RCT (Andersen 2002)​

Smaller RCT (n = 52), mean 32.3 months:[1]

  • Not cured: 60% Durasphere vs 86% Contigen.
  • Not improved: 20% Durasphere vs 38% Contigen.
  • Trend favoring Durasphere, not significant.

Outcomes Table​

StudyDesignnFollow-upOutcome
Lightner 2001RCT vs Contigen35512 mo80.3% ≥ 1 Stamey grade; 4.83 vs 6.23 mL.[2]
Andersen 2002RCT vs Contigen5232.3 mo40% cured vs 14% Contigen; trend NS.[1]
Madjar 2003Retrospective, modified technique469.4 mo mean13% cured, 52.2% improved, 34.7% failed; 92% good coaptation.[4]
Pannek 2001Prospective (13 F, 7 M)2010 mo76.9% improved at 6 mo → 33% at 12 mo; particle migration documented.[6]

Long-Term — Chrouser 2004​

The defining long-term study (median 51 mo Durasphere, 62 mo Contigen):[7]

  • Initially effective in 63% of both arms (p = 1.0).
  • 24 mo: 33% Durasphere vs 19% Contigen still effective.
  • 36 mo: 21% Durasphere vs 9% Contigen.
  • Last follow-up: 21% (9/43) Durasphere vs 5% (2/43) Contigen.
  • After adjusting for follow-up duration, no significant difference in time to failure (p = 0.25).
  • Authors' conclusion: neither Contigen nor Durasphere provides durable continence improvement.

Systematic review: short-term success 30–80%; long-term outcomes inferior to Bulkamid (42–70%), Coaptite (60–75%), and Macroplastique (21–80%).[8]

Safety Profile​

Defining Concern — Particle Migration to Lymph Nodes​

Pannek 2001 documented migration of carbon-coated beads into local and distant lymph nodes as well as into the urethral mucosa at 6 months — despite bead size exceeding the 80 μm phagocytosis threshold. Authors concluded "due to limited success and proved particle migration, carbon coated beads do not show any improvement over existing bulking materials."[6] Migration has not been reported with Bulkamid (homogeneous gel) and was not observed with large-particle (> 100 μm) Macroplastique in preclinical work.[8]

Other Complications​

  • De novo urgency: mean 24.7% — the highest rate among all currently available bulking agents.[8]
  • Transient urinary retention: increased short-term risk vs collagen.[2]
  • Periurethral mass formation (Madjar 2006): 4/135 (2.9%) at mean 14.7 mo with irritative voiding, pelvic pain, and incontinence; radiopaque mass on VUDS; required incision / endoscopic or transvaginal drainage / excision. True incidence undetermined.[9]
  • Bladder outlet obstruction with chronic retention requiring endoscopic evacuation of Durasphere has been reported 1 year post-injection — because Durasphere is permanent, removal requires intervention.[10]
  • UTI: 4–10.6%.[8]

Cross-Agent Safety Comparison​

ComplicationDurasphereBulkamidMacroplastiqueCoaptite
De novo urgency24.7% (highest)LowModerate5.7%
Transient retentionIncreased vs collagen~3.1%~7.2%~34.2% (highest)
Particle migrationYes (lymph nodes)NoRare (large particles)Not reported
ErosionNot reportedNoYes (2.4%)Yes (rare)
Periurethral massYes (2.9%)NoNot reportedGranuloma (case reports)

Post-Prostatectomy SUI (Male)​

In the Pannek series (n = 7 men): 66% improved at 6 mo → 33% at 12 mo.[6] Injection therapy in general has limited efficacy after radical prostatectomy; AUS remains the gold standard.[11]

Fecal Incontinence​

Durasphere has been evaluated as an anal sphincter bulking agent, with mixed results.

RCT vs PTQ silicone (Cochrane review, n = 40):[12]

  • > 50% Wexner improvement at 12 mo: 7/20 (35%) Durasphere vs 18/20 (90%) PTQ (RR 0.15; 95% CI 0.04–0.60).
  • Wexner score at 12 mo: 7.0 vs 3.8 (MD −3.20).
  • More AEs with Durasphere (8 vs 4): 2 rectal-mucosa erosions and 1 type III hypersensitivity reaction requiring 7-day hospitalization and 10-week recovery.

Prospective series:[13][14]

  • Altomare 2008 (n = 33): median Cleveland Clinic continence score 12 → 8 (p < 0.05).
  • Beggs 2010 ultrasound-guided (n = 23): sustained CCS / QoL improvement at 12 mo; 6/21 (29%) no improvement; squeeze pressure ↑ (not resting).

The ASCRS 2023 fecal-incontinence guideline does not routinely recommend injectable bulking agents (limited improvement over placebo, diminishing long-term results, cost).[15]

Cross-Agent Comparison​

ParameterDurasphereBulkamidMacroplastiqueCoaptite
CompositionCarbon-coated ZrO₂ beads in beta-glucanPolyacrylamide hydrogelSilicone macroparticles in PVPCaHA microspheres in aqueous gel
Particle size212–500 μm (90–212 μm EXP)None (homogeneous)> 100 μm75–125 μm
FDA approval1999 (first non-collagen)202020062005
Injection volume3.2–6.0 mL~2–4 mL~5–6.3 mL~4.0 mL
Short-term improvement66–80%66–89.7%73–75%63.4%
Long-term efficacy (3 yr)21% at 36 mo86% at 5 yr49% at ≥ 3 yr60–75%
Particle migrationYes (lymph nodes)NoRareNot reported
Injection difficultySignificant (original)EasyEasy (MIS)Moderate

Guideline Position​

AUA/SUFU 2023: inadequate data to recommend one injectable over another; notably does not highlight Durasphere among agents with long-term persistence data (PAHG 96 mo, PDMS 83 mo, CaHA 73.2 mo).[16]

ACOG: pyrolytic carbon-coated beads comparable to collagen at 1 year (improvement 63–80%); bulking agents less effective than sling surgery.[5]

Regulatory Status​

  • FDA-approved September 13, 1999 — first non-collagen urethral bulking agent.[2]
  • No skin testing required.
  • Not a mesh product — unaffected by FDA mesh restrictions.
  • Durasphere EXP reformulation for easier injection.[3]

Advantages​

  • First non-collagen FDA-approved bulking agent.
  • Non-immunogenic.
  • Less volume than collagen (4.83 vs 6.23 mL).
  • Equivalent short-term efficacy to collagen in double-blind RCT.
  • Radiopaque — implant localization.

Limitations​

  • Poor long-term durability — only 21% effective at 36 mo, the worst long-term outcomes among contemporary bulking agents.[7]
  • Documented particle migration to local and distant lymph nodes.[6]
  • Highest de novo urgency rate (mean 24.7%) among bulking agents.[8]
  • Periurethral mass formation 2.9% (Madjar 2006).[9]
  • Injection difficulty with original formulation.[4]
  • Inferior to PTQ silicone for fecal incontinence in the only head-to-head RCT.[12]
  • No long-term persistence data cited by AUA/SUFU (unlike CaHA, PDMS, PAHG).[16]
  • Largely supplanted by Bulkamid and Macroplastique.[8][17]

Historical Significance​

Durasphere holds an important place as the first non-collagen FDA-approved urethral bulking agent (1999), paving the way for subsequent agents. Documented particle migration, poor long-term durability, high de novo urgency, and injection difficulty have significantly limited contemporary adoption.[17][8][16]

See also: Bulkamid, Macroplastique, Coaptite, Urethral Bulking Agents (procedure).

References​

1. Kirchin V, Page T, Keegan PE, et al. Urethral Injection Therapy for Urinary Incontinence in Women. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2017;7:CD003881. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003881.pub4

2. Lightner D, Calvosa C, Andersen R, et al. A New Injectable Bulking Agent for Treatment of Stress Urinary Incontinence: Results of a Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled, Double-Blind Study of Durasphere. Urology. 2001;58(1):12-15. doi:10.1016/s0090-4295(01)01148-7

3. Hussain SM, Bray R. Urethral Bulking Agents for Female Stress Urinary Incontinence. Neurourology and Urodynamics. 2019;38(3):887-892. doi:10.1002/nau.23924

4. Madjar S, Covington-Nichols C, Secrest CL. New Periurethral Bulking Agent for Stress Urinary Incontinence: Modified Technique and Early Results. The Journal of Urology. 2003;170(6 Pt 1):2327-2329. doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000090968.85279.84

5. Committee on Practice Bulletins—Gynecology and the American Urogynecologic Society. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 155: Urinary Incontinence in Women. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2015;126(5):e66-e81. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000001148

6. Pannek J, Brands FH, Senge T. Particle Migration After Transurethral Injection of Carbon Coated Beads for Stress Urinary Incontinence. The Journal of Urology. 2001;166(4):1350-1353.

7. Chrouser KL, Fick F, Goel A, et al. Carbon Coated Zirconium Beads in Beta-Glucan Gel and Bovine Glutaraldehyde Cross-Linked Collagen Injections for Intrinsic Sphincter Deficiency: Continence and Satisfaction After Extended Followup. The Journal of Urology. 2004;171(3):1152-1155. doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000103688.83606.06

8. Hoe V, Haller B, Yao HH, O'Connell HE. Urethral Bulking Agents for the Treatment of Stress Urinary Incontinence in Women: A Systematic Review. Neurourology and Urodynamics. 2021;40(6):1349-1388. doi:10.1002/nau.24696

9. Madjar S, Sharma AK, Waltzer WC, Frischer Z, Secrest CL. Periurethral Mass Formations Following Bulking Agent Injection for the Treatment of Urinary Incontinence. The Journal of Urology. 2006;175(4):1408-1410. doi:10.1016/S0022-5347(05)00679-8

10. Hartanto VH, Lightner DJ, Nitti VW. Endoscopic Evacuation of Durasphere. Urology. 2003;62(1):135-137. doi:10.1016/s0090-4295(03)00249-8

11. Silva LA, Andriolo RB, Atallah ÁN, da Silva EM. Surgery for Stress Urinary Incontinence Due to Presumed Sphincter Deficiency After Prostate Surgery. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2014;(9):CD008306. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD008306.pub3

12. Maeda Y, Laurberg S, Norton C. Perianal Injectable Bulking Agents as Treatment for Faecal Incontinence in Adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2013;(2):CD007959. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD007959.pub3

13. Altomare DF, La Torre F, Rinaldi M, Binda GA, Pescatori M. Carbon-Coated Microbeads Anal Injection in Outpatient Treatment of Minor Fecal Incontinence. Diseases of the Colon and Rectum. 2008;51(4):432-435. doi:10.1007/s10350-007-9170-7

14. Beggs AD, Irukulla S, Sultan AH, Ness W, Abulafi AM. A Pilot Study of Ultrasound Guided Durasphere Injection in the Treatment of Faecal Incontinence. Colorectal Disease. 2010;12(9):935-940. doi:10.1111/j.1463-1318.2009.01927.x

15. Bordeianou LG, Thorsen AJ, Keller DS, et al. The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Fecal Incontinence. Diseases of the Colon and Rectum. 2023;66(5):647-661. doi:10.1097/DCR.0000000000002776

16. Kobashi KC, Vasavada S, Bloschichak A, et al. Updates to Surgical Treatment of Female Stress Urinary Incontinence (SUI): AUA/SUFU Guideline (2023). The Journal of Urology. 2023;209(6):1091-1098. doi:10.1097/JU.0000000000003435

17. Hillary CJ, Roman S, MacNeil S, et al. Regenerative Medicine and Injection Therapies in Stress Urinary Incontinence. Nature Reviews Urology. 2020;17(3):151-161. doi:10.1038/s41585-019-0273-4