Emilien Seizilles de Mazancourt et al., 2024: Evaluation of a urinary filtration device for kidney stone retrieval: Pi-Box®
Emilien Seizilles de Mazancourt 1, Nora Jamali 2, Geoffroy de Sallmard 2, Hubert de Bayser 2, Xavier Matillon 2, Nadia Abid 2
1Department of Urology, Saint-Louis University Hospital, Paris, France.
2Department of Urology and Transplant Surgery, Edouard-Herriot Hospital, Lyon, France.
Abstract
Introduction: There is an unmet need to offer a proper urinary straining device for patients in whom spontaneous expulsion of stones is expected. The objective of this study was to assess the efficacity, duration and ease of use of a new filtration device: the Pi-Box®.
Material and methods: This was a single-institution, non-randomized open-label study. Consecutive male patients with at least one stone that was susceptible of spontaneous passage, or after shockwave lithotripsy were included. The first 30 consecutive patients (Group 1) used the usual recommended techniques, and the 30 following consecutive patients (Group 2) were given the Pi-Box®. The patients completed a questionnaire when seen at 1-month follow-up.
Results: Sixty men were included between January 2023 and May 2023. Thirteen (43%) patients retrieved a stone in each group (P=1). Filtration was performed for a median of 5 days in Group 1 and 10 days in Group 2 (P=0.03). Fourteen (46%) patients were satisfied or very satisfied with their filtration technique without the device versus 18 (60%) with the Pi-Box® (P=0.3). Eighteen (60%) and 21 patients (70%) would recommend their straining technique to a relative in groups 1 and 2, respectively (P=0.42).
Conclusions: The number of straining days was twice longer with the Pi-Box® device and is in favor of a better observance. The device did not increase the number of stones retrieved by urine filtration, which was high in this pilot study and may have been due to a participation bias.
Fr J Urol. 2024 Sep;34(9):102700. doi: 10.1016/j.fjurol.2024.102700. Epub 2024 Jul 20.
PMID: 39038655 FREE ARTICLE
Comments 1
The authors of this report studied the effect of a special device for collection of fragments and stones after SWL (or any other stone removing procedure). The device was a Pi-Box ®, and it had been of value for the reader with a picture of this equipment in the article.
In a randomized comparison patients in one group used the Pi-Box while the others used what was referred to as standard methods such as coffee filter and other collection materials.
The collection period with Pi-Box was twice that in the other group (10 d vs. 5 d). Most patients who used the Pi-Box were satisfied (60% vs. 46%).
The result of stone analysis in Table 3 does not give any valuable information to the average reader.
It is obvious also from my own experience that successful stone/fragment collection cannot be anticipated unless the patient is given a special device for the procedure and careful instructions on how to do the collection. If the advice to the patient is to invent his/her own model, there is a high risk that the collection will fail.
Hans-Göran Tiselius