Supplementary table 2.

Sub-group analysis (n = 25) comparing UscopePU3022 rated performance to centers who used either a fiber optic or digital standard reusable ureteroscope

Comparative performance measures	Standard scope
	Fiber optic n = 10	Digital n = 15	P-value
UscopePU3022 maneuverability  Grouped VAS scores, n (%)   Better   Equivalent   Worse	5 (50) 4 (40) 1 (10)	5 (33) 9 (60) 1 (7)	aP = 0.62
UscopePU3022 visual quality  Grouped VAS scores, n (%)   Better   Equivalent   Worse	4 (40) 1 (10) 5 (50)	3 (20) 2 (13) 10 (67)	aP = 0.55
Overall UscopePU3022 performance  Grouped VAS scores, n (%)   Better   Equivalent   Worse	4 (40) 1 (10) 5 (50)	5 (33) 2 (13) 8 (54)	aP = 0.93

Centers which used both a reusable fiber optic and a digital f-URS as standard were excluded (n = 31)

VAS = Visual Analog Scale

Grouped VAS scores: 1–4 = worse, 5–6 = equivalent and 7–10 = better

^aχ² test assessing for a difference in the UscopePU3022 performance rating when compared to reuseable fiber optic and reusable digital