AIM:To compare 2 different types of covered esophageal nitinol stents(Ultraflex and Choostent) in terms of efficacy,complications,and long-term outcome.METHODS:A retrospective review of a consecutive series of 65 patients who underwent endoscopic placement of an Ultraflex stent(n = 33) or a Choostent(n = 32) from June 2001 to October 2009 was conducted.RESULTS:Stent placement was successful in all patients without hospital mortality.No significant differences in patient discomfort and complications were observed between the Ultraflex stent and Choostent groups.The median follow-up time was 6 mo(interquartile range 3-16 mo).Endoscopic reintervention was required in 9 patients(14%) because of stent migration or food obstruction.No significant difference in the rate of reintervention between the 2 groups was observed(P = 0.8).The mean dysphagia score 1 mo after stent placement was 1.9 ± 0.3 for the Ultraflex stent and 2.1 ± 0.4 for the Choostent(P = 0.6).At 1-mo follow-up endoscopy,the cover membrane of the stent appeared to be damaged more frequently in the Choostent group(P = 0.34).Removal of the Choostent was possible up to 8 wk without difficulty.CONCLUSION:Ultraflex and Choostent proved to be equally reliable for palliation of dysphagia and leaks.Removal of the Choostent was easy and safe under mild sedation. AIM: To compare 2 different types of covered esophageal nitinol stents (Ultraflex and Choostent) in terms of efficacy, complications, and long-term outcome. METHHODS: A retrospective review of a consecutive series of 65 patients who underwent endoscopic placement of an Ultraflex stent (n = 33) or a Choostent (n = 32) from June 2001 to October 2009 was performed. RESULTS: Stent placement was successful in all patients without hospital mortality. No significant differences in patient discomfort and complications were observed between the Ultraflex stent and Choostent groups. The median follow-up time was 6 months (interquartile range 3-16 mo). Endoscopic reintervention was required in 9 patients (14%) because of stent migration or food obstruction. No significant difference in the rate of reintervention between the The mean dysphagia score 1 mo after stent placement was 1.9 ± 0.3 for the Ultraflex stent and 2.1 ± 0.4 for the Choostent (P = 0.6). At 1-mo follow-up endoscopy, thecover membrane of the stent appeared to be damaged more frequently in the Choostent group (P = 0.34). Removal of the Choostent was possible up to 8 wk without difficulty. CONCLUSION: Ultraflex and Choostent proved to be equally reliable for palliation of dysphagia and leaks .Removal of the Choostent was easy and safe under mild sedation.