AIM: To evaluate if differences exist between selfexpanding esophageal metal stents(SEMS) and selfexpanding esophageal plastic stents(SEPS) when used for benign or malignant esophageal disorders with regard to safety, efficacy, clinical outcomes, placement ease and cost.METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed to evaluate outcome in patients having SEPS/SEMS placed for malignant or benign esophageal conditions from January 2005 to April 2012. Inclusion criteria was completed SEMS/SEPS placement. Outcomes assessed included technical success of and time required for stent placement, procedure-related complications, need for repeat intervention, hospital stay, mortality and costs.RESULTS: Forty-three patients underwent stent placement for either benign/malignant esophagealdisease during the study period. Thirty patients had SEMS(25 male, mean age 59.6 years old) and 13 patients had SEPS(10 male, mean age 61.7 years old). Placement outcome as well as complication rate(SEPS 23.1%, SEMS 25.2%) and in-hospital mortality(SEPS 7.7%, SEMS 6.7%) after placement did not differ between stent types. Migration was the most frequent complication reported occurring equally between types(SEPS 66.7%, SEMS 57.1%). SEPS was less costly than SEMS, decreasing institutional cost by $255/stent.CONCLUSION: SEPS and SEMS have similar outcomes when used for benign or malignant esophageal conditions. However, SEPS use results in decreased costs without impacting care. AIM: To evaluate if differences exist between selfexpanding esophageal metal stents (SEMS) and selfexpanding esophageal plastic stents (SEPS) when used for benign or malignant esophageal disorders with regard to safety, efficacy, clinical outcomes, placement ease and cost. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed to evaluate outcome in patients with SEPS / SEMS placed for malignant or benign esophageal conditions from January 2005 to April 2012. Inclusion criteria was completed SEMS / SEPS placement. Outcomesrated included technical success of and time required for stent placement, procedure- related complications, need for repeat intervention, hospital stay, mortality and costs. RESULTS: Forty-three patients underwent stent placement for either benign / malignant esophageal disease during the study period. Thirty patients had SEMS (25 male, mean age 59.6 years old) and 13 patients had SEPS (10 male, mean age 61.7 years old). Placement outcome as well as complication rate (SEPS 23.1%, SE MSPS 25.2%) and in-hospital mortality (SEPS 7.7%, SEMS 6.7%) after placement did not differ between stent types. Migration was the most frequent complication reported occurrence equally between types (SEPS 66.7%, SEMS 57.1%). SEPS was less costly than SEMS, decreasing institutional cost by $ 255 / stent. CONCLUSION: SEPS and SEMS have similar outcomes when used for benign or malignant esophageal conditions. However, SEPS use results in decreased costs without impacting care.