SEMS vs cSEMS in duodenal and small bowel obstruction: High risk of migration in the covered stent group

Table 3 Complication rates in small bowel self-expanding metal stents placement in retrospective analyses

Study	Patients, stents	Site of tumor obstruction	Tumor overgrowth	Migration	Bleeding	Perforation
Costamagna et al[1]	202, 212	Endoscopic duodenal stenting	12.4%	1.5%	3.0%	0.5%
van Hooft et al[2]	50, 57	Endoscopic stenting for gastric outlet obstruction	21.0%	4.0%	0.0%	0.0%
Jeong et al[4]	25, 28	Gastrojejunostomy, esophagojejunostomy, cSEMS	17.0%	4.0%	0.0%	1.0%
Chandrasegaram et al[7]	26, 31	Endoscopic stenting vs operative gastrojejunostomy	12.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
Jang et al[17]	583, 603	Peripyloric region, nonperipyloric region, duodenum alone anastomosis (Billroth I, Billroth II), jejunum	3.8%	NM	NM	< 1.0%
Kim et al[25]	50, 50	Endoscopic stenting for malignant gastroduodenal obstructions	18.0%	10.0%	0.0%	0.0%
Wong et al[26]	6, 6	Surgical vs endoscopic palliation	NM	NM	NM	NM
Mosler et al[27]	36, 52	Endoscopic stenting of nonesophageal upper gastrointestinal stenosis	11.0%	14.0%	0.0%	6.0%
Kim et al[28]	213, 236	Malignant gastroduodenal obstruction	7.0%	4.0%	1.0%	0.0%
Bang et al[29]	134, 132	Endoscopic treatment for malignant antropyloric and duodenal	cSEMS 5.7%SEMS 19.0%	cSEMS 26.4% SEMS 6.3%	2.2%	< 1.0%
Keränen et al[30]	104, 130	Endoscopic treatment for malignant gastric outlet obstruction	18.0%	0.0%	0.0%	1.9%
Ahn et al[31]	47, 52	Malignant gastroduodenal obstruction, uncovered SEMS	11.0%	2.0%	0.0%	4.0%
Canena et al[32]	74, 80	Endoscopic stenting for gastric outlet obstruction	9.5%	0.0%	1.4%	0.0%
Cha et al[33]	85, 85	Endoscopic stenting for gastroduodenal obstruction	29.0%	4.0%	4.0%	4.0%
Own data	20, 32	Small bowel/duodenum	cSEMS 13.0%SEMS 19.0%	cSEMS 56.0%SEMS 0.0%	0.0%	0.0%

SEMS: Self-expanding metal stent; cSEMS: Covered SEMS; NM: Not mentioned.