Supplementary Material for: Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy versus Laparoscopic Ureterolithotomy or Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in the Management of Large Proximal Ureteral Stones: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

<p><b><i>Objectives:</i></b> To provide a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing ureterolithotripsy (URS) with percutaneous nephrolithotripsy (PCNL) or laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (LU) techniques for the management of large proximal ureteral stones (diameter greater than 10 mm). <b><i>Methods:</i></b> A literature search was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, EBSCO, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library to identify suitable studies until November 2016. We used weighted mean difference to measure operative time and hospital stay, OR to measure stone free rate (SFR), and complication rate. Subgroup analyses were assessed for heterogeneity. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Fourteen publications strictly met our eligibility criteria of which 7 were randomized control studies (RCTs) and 7 non-RCTs. Meta-analysis of extractable data showed that LU and PCNL had higher SFR than URS. URS led to a similar hospital stay like that of LU. However, it had a shorter operative time and lower complication rate than LU. When we compared URS with PCNL, we found a shorter hospital stay in the URS group. However, there was no significant difference in terms of the operative time and complication rate between URS and PCNL. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> URS should be considered standard therapy for treating large proximal ureteral stones.</p>