AIM:To investigate and compare the decompression effect on small bowel obstruction of a long tube inserted using either endoscopic or fluoroscopic placement.METHODS:Seventy-eight patients with small bowel obstruction requiring decompression were enrolled in the study and divided into two groups.Intubation of a long tube was guided by fluoroscopy in one group and by endoscopy in the other.The duration of the procedure and the success rate for each group were evaluated.RESULTS:A statistically significant difference in the mean duration of the procedure was found between the fluoroscopic group(32.6±14.6 min)and the endoscopic group(16.5±7.8 min)among the cases classified as successful(P<0.05).The success rate was significantly different between the groups:88.6%in the fluoroscopic group and 100%in the endoscopic group(P <0.05).CONCLUSION:For patients with adhesive small bowel obstruction,long-tube decompression is recommended and long-tube insertion by endoscopy was superior to fluoroscopic placement. AIM: To investigate and compare the decompression effect on small bowel obstruction of a long tube inserted using either endoscopic or fluoroscopic placement. METHODS: Seventy-eight patients with small bowel obstruction requiring decompression were enrolled in the study and divided into two groups. Intubation of a long tube was guided by fluoroscopy in one group and by endoscopy in the other. duration of the procedure and the success rate for each group were evaluated .RESULTS: A statistically significant difference in the mean duration of the procedure was found between the fluoroscopic group (32.6 ± 14.6 min) and the endoscopic group (16.5 ± 7.8 min) among the cases classified as successful (P <0.05). The success rate was significantly different between the groups: 88.6% in the fluoroscopic group and 100% in the endoscopic group (P <0.05). CONCLUSION: For patients with adhesive small bowel obstruction, long-tube decompression is recommended and long-tube insertion by endoscopy was superior to fluorosco pic placement.