Objective:To compare the short-term efficacy of robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy(RASC)and lap-aroscopic sacrocolpopexy(LSC)in overweight/obese patients with pelvic organ prolapse(POP),and to evaluate the advantages of RASC.Methods:We retrospectively collected the clinical data of overweight/obese(body mass index≥24 kg/m2)patients over 50 years old with POP who underwent sacrocolpopexy in the Department of Gynecology of the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University from November 2014 to June 2023.According to the surgical method,they were divided into robotic group(68 cases)and laparoscopic group(110 cases).The intraoperative,postoperative and short-term follow-up outcomes of the two groups were compared.Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-short form 20(PFDI-20),Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-short form 7(PFIQ-7)and the Patient Global Impression of Improvement(PGI-Ⅰ)were used to evaluate surgical outcomes.Results:①No intra-operative conversion to laparotomy was found in both groups.Compared with the laparoscopic group,the robotic group had shorter operation time,less intraoperative blood loss,shorter postoperative anal exhaust time,and shor-ter postoperative hospital stay.The difference was statistically significant(P＜0.05).②There were no intraopera-tive complications in the robot group.While in the laparoscopic group,there was 1 case of bladder injury.③Within the two groups,the PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7 scores at 3 and 12 months after surgery were lower than those before surgery,and the difference was statistically significant(P＜0.05).PGI-Ⅰ scores were both"significantly im-proved".Subjective and objective cure rate were 100％.④The POP-Q indicator points(Aa,Ba,C,Ap,Bp,gh,pb,TVL)of both groups at 3 and 12 months after surgery were better than those before surgery(P＜0.05),achie-ving satisfactory anatomical reduction.Conclusions:RASC is safe and feasible in the treatment of overweight and obese patients with POP.Compared to LSC,RASC has significantly shorter operation time,less blood loss,faster postoperative intestinal function recovery,shorter postoperative hospital stay,and stable short-term effect.Therefore,RASC can provide a new choice for overweight/obese patients with POP.

Objective:To compare the short-term efficacy of robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy(RASC)and lap-aroscopic sacrocolpopexy(LSC)in overweight/obese patients with pelvic organ prolapse(POP),and to evaluate the advantages of RASC.Methods:We retrospectively collected the clinical data of overweight/obese(body mass index≥24 kg/m2)patients over 50 years old with POP who underwent sacrocolpopexy in the Department of Gynecology of the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University from November 2014 to June 2023.According to the surgical method,they were divided into robotic group(68 cases)and laparoscopic group(110 cases).The intraoperative,postoperative and short-term follow-up outcomes of the two groups were compared.Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-short form 20(PFDI-20),Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-short form 7(PFIQ-7)and the Patient Global Impression of Improvement(PGI-Ⅰ)were used to evaluate surgical outcomes.Results:①No intra-operative conversion to laparotomy was found in both groups.Compared with the laparoscopic group,the robotic group had shorter operation time,less intraoperative blood loss,shorter postoperative anal exhaust time,and shor-ter postoperative hospital stay.The difference was statistically significant(P＜0.05).②There were no intraopera-tive complications in the robot group.While in the laparoscopic group,there was 1 case of bladder injury.③Within the two groups,the PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7 scores at 3 and 12 months after surgery were lower than those before surgery,and the difference was statistically significant(P＜0.05).PGI-Ⅰ scores were both"significantly im-proved".Subjective and objective cure rate were 100％.④The POP-Q indicator points(Aa,Ba,C,Ap,Bp,gh,pb,TVL)of both groups at 3 and 12 months after surgery were better than those before surgery(P＜0.05),achie-ving satisfactory anatomical reduction.Conclusions:RASC is safe and feasible in the treatment of overweight and obese patients with POP.Compared to LSC,RASC has significantly shorter operation time,less blood loss,faster postoperative intestinal function recovery,shorter postoperative hospital stay,and stable short-term effect.Therefore,RASC can provide a new choice for overweight/obese patients with POP.

Objective:To compare the short-term efficacy of robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy(RASC)and lap-aroscopic sacrocolpopexy(LSC)in overweight/obese patients with pelvic organ prolapse(POP),and to evaluate the advantages of RASC.Methods:We retrospectively collected the clinical data of overweight/obese(body mass index≥24 kg/m2)patients over 50 years old with POP who underwent sacrocolpopexy in the Department of Gynecology of the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University from November 2014 to June 2023.According to the surgical method,they were divided into robotic group(68 cases)and laparoscopic group(110 cases).The intraoperative,postoperative and short-term follow-up outcomes of the two groups were compared.Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-short form 20(PFDI-20),Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-short form 7(PFIQ-7)and the Patient Global Impression of Improvement(PGI-Ⅰ)were used to evaluate surgical outcomes.Results:①No intra-operative conversion to laparotomy was found in both groups.Compared with the laparoscopic group,the robotic group had shorter operation time,less intraoperative blood loss,shorter postoperative anal exhaust time,and shor-ter postoperative hospital stay.The difference was statistically significant(P＜0.05).②There were no intraopera-tive complications in the robot group.While in the laparoscopic group,there was 1 case of bladder injury.③Within the two groups,the PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7 scores at 3 and 12 months after surgery were lower than those before surgery,and the difference was statistically significant(P＜0.05).PGI-Ⅰ scores were both"significantly im-proved".Subjective and objective cure rate were 100％.④The POP-Q indicator points(Aa,Ba,C,Ap,Bp,gh,pb,TVL)of both groups at 3 and 12 months after surgery were better than those before surgery(P＜0.05),achie-ving satisfactory anatomical reduction.Conclusions:RASC is safe and feasible in the treatment of overweight and obese patients with POP.Compared to LSC,RASC has significantly shorter operation time,less blood loss,faster postoperative intestinal function recovery,shorter postoperative hospital stay,and stable short-term effect.Therefore,RASC can provide a new choice for overweight/obese patients with POP.

Objective:To compare the short-term efficacy of robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy(RASC)and lap-aroscopic sacrocolpopexy(LSC)in overweight/obese patients with pelvic organ prolapse(POP),and to evaluate the advantages of RASC.Methods:We retrospectively collected the clinical data of overweight/obese(body mass index≥24 kg/m2)patients over 50 years old with POP who underwent sacrocolpopexy in the Department of Gynecology of the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University from November 2014 to June 2023.According to the surgical method,they were divided into robotic group(68 cases)and laparoscopic group(110 cases).The intraoperative,postoperative and short-term follow-up outcomes of the two groups were compared.Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-short form 20(PFDI-20),Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-short form 7(PFIQ-7)and the Patient Global Impression of Improvement(PGI-Ⅰ)were used to evaluate surgical outcomes.Results:①No intra-operative conversion to laparotomy was found in both groups.Compared with the laparoscopic group,the robotic group had shorter operation time,less intraoperative blood loss,shorter postoperative anal exhaust time,and shor-ter postoperative hospital stay.The difference was statistically significant(P＜0.05).②There were no intraopera-tive complications in the robot group.While in the laparoscopic group,there was 1 case of bladder injury.③Within the two groups,the PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7 scores at 3 and 12 months after surgery were lower than those before surgery,and the difference was statistically significant(P＜0.05).PGI-Ⅰ scores were both"significantly im-proved".Subjective and objective cure rate were 100％.④The POP-Q indicator points(Aa,Ba,C,Ap,Bp,gh,pb,TVL)of both groups at 3 and 12 months after surgery were better than those before surgery(P＜0.05),achie-ving satisfactory anatomical reduction.Conclusions:RASC is safe and feasible in the treatment of overweight and obese patients with POP.Compared to LSC,RASC has significantly shorter operation time,less blood loss,faster postoperative intestinal function recovery,shorter postoperative hospital stay,and stable short-term effect.Therefore,RASC can provide a new choice for overweight/obese patients with POP.

Objective:To compare the short-term efficacy of robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy(RASC)and lap-aroscopic sacrocolpopexy(LSC)in overweight/obese patients with pelvic organ prolapse(POP),and to evaluate the advantages of RASC.Methods:We retrospectively collected the clinical data of overweight/obese(body mass index≥24 kg/m2)patients over 50 years old with POP who underwent sacrocolpopexy in the Department of Gynecology of the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University from November 2014 to June 2023.According to the surgical method,they were divided into robotic group(68 cases)and laparoscopic group(110 cases).The intraoperative,postoperative and short-term follow-up outcomes of the two groups were compared.Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-short form 20(PFDI-20),Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-short form 7(PFIQ-7)and the Patient Global Impression of Improvement(PGI-Ⅰ)were used to evaluate surgical outcomes.Results:①No intra-operative conversion to laparotomy was found in both groups.Compared with the laparoscopic group,the robotic group had shorter operation time,less intraoperative blood loss,shorter postoperative anal exhaust time,and shor-ter postoperative hospital stay.The difference was statistically significant(P＜0.05).②There were no intraopera-tive complications in the robot group.While in the laparoscopic group,there was 1 case of bladder injury.③Within the two groups,the PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7 scores at 3 and 12 months after surgery were lower than those before surgery,and the difference was statistically significant(P＜0.05).PGI-Ⅰ scores were both"significantly im-proved".Subjective and objective cure rate were 100％.④The POP-Q indicator points(Aa,Ba,C,Ap,Bp,gh,pb,TVL)of both groups at 3 and 12 months after surgery were better than those before surgery(P＜0.05),achie-ving satisfactory anatomical reduction.Conclusions:RASC is safe and feasible in the treatment of overweight and obese patients with POP.Compared to LSC,RASC has significantly shorter operation time,less blood loss,faster postoperative intestinal function recovery,shorter postoperative hospital stay,and stable short-term effect.Therefore,RASC can provide a new choice for overweight/obese patients with POP.

Objective:To compare the short-term efficacy of robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy(RASC)and lap-aroscopic sacrocolpopexy(LSC)in overweight/obese patients with pelvic organ prolapse(POP),and to evaluate the advantages of RASC.Methods:We retrospectively collected the clinical data of overweight/obese(body mass index≥24 kg/m2)patients over 50 years old with POP who underwent sacrocolpopexy in the Department of Gynecology of the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University from November 2014 to June 2023.According to the surgical method,they were divided into robotic group(68 cases)and laparoscopic group(110 cases).The intraoperative,postoperative and short-term follow-up outcomes of the two groups were compared.Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-short form 20(PFDI-20),Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-short form 7(PFIQ-7)and the Patient Global Impression of Improvement(PGI-Ⅰ)were used to evaluate surgical outcomes.Results:①No intra-operative conversion to laparotomy was found in both groups.Compared with the laparoscopic group,the robotic group had shorter operation time,less intraoperative blood loss,shorter postoperative anal exhaust time,and shor-ter postoperative hospital stay.The difference was statistically significant(P＜0.05).②There were no intraopera-tive complications in the robot group.While in the laparoscopic group,there was 1 case of bladder injury.③Within the two groups,the PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7 scores at 3 and 12 months after surgery were lower than those before surgery,and the difference was statistically significant(P＜0.05).PGI-Ⅰ scores were both"significantly im-proved".Subjective and objective cure rate were 100％.④The POP-Q indicator points(Aa,Ba,C,Ap,Bp,gh,pb,TVL)of both groups at 3 and 12 months after surgery were better than those before surgery(P＜0.05),achie-ving satisfactory anatomical reduction.Conclusions:RASC is safe and feasible in the treatment of overweight and obese patients with POP.Compared to LSC,RASC has significantly shorter operation time,less blood loss,faster postoperative intestinal function recovery,shorter postoperative hospital stay,and stable short-term effect.Therefore,RASC can provide a new choice for overweight/obese patients with POP.

Objective:To compare the short-term efficacy of robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy(RASC)and lap-aroscopic sacrocolpopexy(LSC)in overweight/obese patients with pelvic organ prolapse(POP),and to evaluate the advantages of RASC.Methods:We retrospectively collected the clinical data of overweight/obese(body mass index≥24 kg/m2)patients over 50 years old with POP who underwent sacrocolpopexy in the Department of Gynecology of the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University from November 2014 to June 2023.According to the surgical method,they were divided into robotic group(68 cases)and laparoscopic group(110 cases).The intraoperative,postoperative and short-term follow-up outcomes of the two groups were compared.Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-short form 20(PFDI-20),Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-short form 7(PFIQ-7)and the Patient Global Impression of Improvement(PGI-Ⅰ)were used to evaluate surgical outcomes.Results:①No intra-operative conversion to laparotomy was found in both groups.Compared with the laparoscopic group,the robotic group had shorter operation time,less intraoperative blood loss,shorter postoperative anal exhaust time,and shor-ter postoperative hospital stay.The difference was statistically significant(P＜0.05).②There were no intraopera-tive complications in the robot group.While in the laparoscopic group,there was 1 case of bladder injury.③Within the two groups,the PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7 scores at 3 and 12 months after surgery were lower than those before surgery,and the difference was statistically significant(P＜0.05).PGI-Ⅰ scores were both"significantly im-proved".Subjective and objective cure rate were 100％.④The POP-Q indicator points(Aa,Ba,C,Ap,Bp,gh,pb,TVL)of both groups at 3 and 12 months after surgery were better than those before surgery(P＜0.05),achie-ving satisfactory anatomical reduction.Conclusions:RASC is safe and feasible in the treatment of overweight and obese patients with POP.Compared to LSC,RASC has significantly shorter operation time,less blood loss,faster postoperative intestinal function recovery,shorter postoperative hospital stay,and stable short-term effect.Therefore,RASC can provide a new choice for overweight/obese patients with POP.

Objective:To compare the short-term efficacy of robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy(RASC)and lap-aroscopic sacrocolpopexy(LSC)in overweight/obese patients with pelvic organ prolapse(POP),and to evaluate the advantages of RASC.Methods:We retrospectively collected the clinical data of overweight/obese(body mass index≥24 kg/m2)patients over 50 years old with POP who underwent sacrocolpopexy in the Department of Gynecology of the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University from November 2014 to June 2023.According to the surgical method,they were divided into robotic group(68 cases)and laparoscopic group(110 cases).The intraoperative,postoperative and short-term follow-up outcomes of the two groups were compared.Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-short form 20(PFDI-20),Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-short form 7(PFIQ-7)and the Patient Global Impression of Improvement(PGI-Ⅰ)were used to evaluate surgical outcomes.Results:①No intra-operative conversion to laparotomy was found in both groups.Compared with the laparoscopic group,the robotic group had shorter operation time,less intraoperative blood loss,shorter postoperative anal exhaust time,and shor-ter postoperative hospital stay.The difference was statistically significant(P＜0.05).②There were no intraopera-tive complications in the robot group.While in the laparoscopic group,there was 1 case of bladder injury.③Within the two groups,the PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7 scores at 3 and 12 months after surgery were lower than those before surgery,and the difference was statistically significant(P＜0.05).PGI-Ⅰ scores were both"significantly im-proved".Subjective and objective cure rate were 100％.④The POP-Q indicator points(Aa,Ba,C,Ap,Bp,gh,pb,TVL)of both groups at 3 and 12 months after surgery were better than those before surgery(P＜0.05),achie-ving satisfactory anatomical reduction.Conclusions:RASC is safe and feasible in the treatment of overweight and obese patients with POP.Compared to LSC,RASC has significantly shorter operation time,less blood loss,faster postoperative intestinal function recovery,shorter postoperative hospital stay,and stable short-term effect.Therefore,RASC can provide a new choice for overweight/obese patients with POP.

Peritoneal metastasis in gastric cancer is associated with rapid disease progression. Hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) done immediately after cytoreductive surgery (CRS) has become an important treatment for peritoneal metastasis in gastric cancer patients. However, different treatment options for HIPEC exist with potential influence on survival rates and prognosis in patients, exist. These treatment options include open or closed abdomen technique, perfusion solution, number of catheters, temperature, duration, and drug regimens. This paper aims to provide more evidence on standardization of HIPEC treatment options and technologies by systematically reviewing different drug regimens and technical approaches. The study included 2 randomized controlled trials, 3 phase I/II clinical trials, 2 prospective cohort studies, and 34 retrospective cohort studies, involving 1511 patients. The most common HIPEC option is to dissolve 50-75 mg/m 2 of Cisplatin and 30-40 mg/m 2 of Mitomycin C in 3-4 L saline solution at 42-43℃. After gastrointestinal anastomosis, 2-3 catheters are used in the HIPEC system with a perfusion flow rate of 500 ml/min. The duration is 60-90 minutes. Anastomotic leakage was low in studies where HIPEC was performed after gastrointestinal anastomosis. The utilization of open HIPEC and a two-drug regimen resulted in improved overall survival rates. The future development of HIPEC aims to enhance tumor-specific therapy by optimizing various aspects, such as identifying the safest and most effective chemotherapy regimens, refining patient selection criteria, and improving perioperative care.

Peritoneal metastasis in gastric cancer is associated with rapid disease progression. Hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) done immediately after cytoreductive surgery (CRS) has become an important treatment for peritoneal metastasis in gastric cancer patients. However, different treatment options for HIPEC exist with potential influence on survival rates and prognosis in patients, exist. These treatment options include open or closed abdomen technique, perfusion solution, number of catheters, temperature, duration, and drug regimens. This paper aims to provide more evidence on standardization of HIPEC treatment options and technologies by systematically reviewing different drug regimens and technical approaches. The study included 2 randomized controlled trials, 3 phase I/II clinical trials, 2 prospective cohort studies, and 34 retrospective cohort studies, involving 1511 patients. The most common HIPEC option is to dissolve 50-75 mg/m 2 of Cisplatin and 30-40 mg/m 2 of Mitomycin C in 3-4 L saline solution at 42-43℃. After gastrointestinal anastomosis, 2-3 catheters are used in the HIPEC system with a perfusion flow rate of 500 ml/min. The duration is 60-90 minutes. Anastomotic leakage was low in studies where HIPEC was performed after gastrointestinal anastomosis. The utilization of open HIPEC and a two-drug regimen resulted in improved overall survival rates. The future development of HIPEC aims to enhance tumor-specific therapy by optimizing various aspects, such as identifying the safest and most effective chemotherapy regimens, refining patient selection criteria, and improving perioperative care.