Abstract
Duodenal and gastric ulcers are among the most prevalent conditions worldwide, affecting 5–10% of the general population on average [1]. Although there has been significant improvement in treating this pathology in recent decades, 10-15% of patients with peptic ulcer disease still experience various consequences, despite a significant drop in morbidity, hospitalization, and death. The most frequent consequence of gastroduodenal ulcers nowadays is bleeding, which has a 30-day death rate of up to 8.6% and an annual incidence in the general population ranging from 0.02 to 0.06% [2]. Specialists from diverse backgrounds, including as surgeons, gastroenterologists, and resuscitators, are involved in the care of this patient group. The endoscopic service is assigned primary diagnostic priority. In most situations, endoscopic intervention serves as the main therapeutic approach for bleeding ulcerative etiology in addition to providing a topical diagnosis of the condition. Hemostasis can now be achieved by a variety of techniques, including chemical, mechanical, and physical ones, thanks to endoscopic interventions. The endoscopist's experience, specific consumables in the equipment, and other considerations all play a role in the decision of which approach to choose [3,4,5]. Despite all of these minimally invasive technologies' benefits, the issue of hemostasis technique selection and its relative efficacy in preventing hemorrhagic syndrome recurrence remains pertinent. This determines the ongoing research in this area, as new techniques are developed and combined to improve endoscopic treatment outcomes[6,7,8].