Published online Jun 21, 2026. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v32.i23.118240
Revised: February 15, 2026
Accepted: March 20, 2026
Published online: June 21, 2026
Processing time: 135 Days and 18 Hours
Previous studies have not clarified a universally acknowledged treatment app
To compare the clinical efficacy, safety, and procedural outcomes of lauroma
Seventy-five participants were enrolled in this study. Thirteen patients received conservative treatment, 20 received lauromacrogol injection, 22 underwent APC, 18 underwent endoscopic ligation therapy, and two received hemostatic clip the
Compared with conservative therapy, interventional therapy was associated with a lower rebleeding rate. Compared with ligation therapy, lauromacrogol therapy was associated with less intraprocedural bleeding and showed a higher technical success rate and shorter operative duration. Compared with lauromacrogol and ligation therapies, APC was associated with a shorter procedure duration, a higher technical success rate, and less intraprocedural bleeding.
Our observational data suggest that lauromacrogol injection may be a more suitable option for raised small bowel hemangiomas, while APC may be preferable for flat lesions.
Core Tip: Small bowel hemangioma is a rare but important cause of obscure gastrointestinal bleeding, and the optimal endoscopic treatment strategy remains unclear. This single-center retrospective study is the first to compare lauromacrogol injection, argon plasma coagulation, and endoscopic ligation via double-balloon enteroscopy. Our findings suggest that lauromacrogol injection is safer and more effective for raised lesions, while argon plasma coagulation is the optimal option for flat hemangiomas, providing practical guidance for endoscopists in clinical decision-making.