Background: Higher positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) during laparoscopic surgery may increase oxygenation and respiratory compliance. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the impact of different intraoperative PEEP strategies on arterial oxygenation, compliance, and hemodynamics during laparoscopic surgery in non-obese patients. Methods: We searched RCTs in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar from January 2012 to April 2022 comparing the different intraoperative PEEP (Low PEEP (LPEEP): 0–4 mbar; Moderate PEEP (MPEEP): 5–8 mbar; high PEEP (HPEEP): >8 mbar; individualized PEEP - iPEEP) on arterial oxygenation, respiratory compliance (Cdyn), mean arterial pressure (MAP), and heart rate (HR). We calculated mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), and predictive intervals (PI) using random-effects models. The Cochrane Bias Risk Assessment Tool was applied. Results: 21 RCTs (n = 1554) met the inclusion criteria. HPEEP vs. LPEEP increased PaO₂ (+ 29.38 [16.20; 42.56] mmHg, p < 0.0001) or PaO₂/FiO₂ (+ 36.7 [+ 2.23; +71.70] mmHg, p = 0.04). HPEEP vs. MPEEP increased PaO₂ (+ 22.00 [+ 1.11; +42.88] mmHg, p = 0.04) or PaO₂/FiO₂ (+ 42.7 [+ 2.74; +82.67] mmHg, p = 0.04). iPEEP vs. MPEEP increased PaO₂/FiO₂ (+ 115.2 [+ 87.21; +143.20] mmHg, p < 0.001). MPEEP vs. LPEP, and HPEEP vs. MPEEP increased PaO₂ or PaO₂/FiO₂ significantly with different heterogeneity. HPEEP vs. LPEEP increased Cdyn (+ 7.87 [+ 1.49; +14.25] ml/mbar, p = 0.02). MPEEP vs. LPEEP, and HPEEP vs. MPEEP did not impact Cdyn (p = 0.14 and 0.38, respectively). iPEEP vs. LPEEP decreased driving pressure (-4.13 [-2.63; -5.63] mbar, p < 0.001). No significant differences in MAP or HR were found between any subgroups. Conclusion: HPEEP and iPEEP during PNP in non-obese patients could promote oxygenation and increase Cdyn without clinically significant changes in MAP and HR. MPEEP could be insufficient to increase respiratory compliance and improve oxygenation. LPEEP may lead to decreased respiratory compliance and worsened oxygenation. Prospero registration: CRD42022362379; registered October 09, 2022.

High and individual positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) during laparoscopic surgery may improve oxygenation and respiratory mechanics. We searched RCTs in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar from from from January 2000 to December 2023 comparing the different intraoperative PEEP (low PEEP (LPEEP): 0–5 mbar; moderate PEEP (MPEEP): 6–9 mbar; high PEEP (HPEEP): >=10 mbar; individualized PEEP (iPEEP): PEEP set by special physiological technique) on arterial oxygenation, respiratory compliance (Cdyn) or driving pressure, mean arterial pressure (MAP), and heart rate (HR) in patients during laparoscopic surgery in reverse Trendelenburg position. We calculated mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), and predictive intervals (PI) using random-effects models. The Cochrane Bias Risk Assessment Tool was applied. 8 RCTs (n = 425) met the inclusion criteria. HPEEP vs. LPEEP increased PaO2/FiO2 (+ 129.93 [+ 75.20; +184.65] mmHg, p < 0.0001) with high variation of true effect (Chi2 34.92, p < 0.0001; I2 89%). iPEEP vs. LPEEP also increased PaO2/FiO2 + 130.23 [+ 57.18; +203.27] mmHg, p = 0.0005) with high variation of true effect (Chi2 26.95, p < 0.0001; I2 93%). HPEEP vs. LPEEP increased Cdyn (+ 15.06 [5.47; +24.65] ml/mbar, p = 0.002) with high variation of true effect (Chi2 93.16, p < 0.0001; I2 96%). iPEEP vs. LPEEP increased Cdyn (+ 22.46 [+ 8.56; +36.35] ml/mbar, p = 0.002) with high variability of the true effect (Chi2 53.92, p < 0.0001; I2 96%). HPEEP group had higher MAP as compared to LPEEP) + 4.36 [+ 0.36;+8.36], p = 0.03), variability of the true effect was nonsignificant. HR did nit differ between all comparisons. In patients with obesity undergoing surgery in the reverse Trendelenburg position HPEEP and iPEEP may improve oxygenation, decrease driving pressure, and increase dynamic compliance compared to LPEEP with high variation of true effect without relevant hemodynamic compromise. Data with MPEEP comparisons are inconclusive. CRD42023488971; registered December 14, 2023.

Vesicovaginal fistula with stone is an infrequent condition; therefore, it can be often misdiagnosed. The formation of vaginal stones is mainly due to urinary stasis and infection. We describe the case of a 69-year-old patient who was diagnosed with a vesicovaginal fistula in 2012. The etiology of the disease was related to supravesical amputation of the uterus and radiation therapy. 9 years later a medium-sized stone was found in the fistula. This type of case is rare in practice. The final diagnosis can be made together with gynecologists based on the results of pelvic computed tomography.

Breast cancer (BC) is the most common cancer in Kazakhstan, and a population-based breast cancer screening program was introduced in 2008, initially targeting women aged 50–60 years. It was subsequently expanded in 2018 to include women aged 40–70 years. This study evaluates the national BC screening program from its introduction in 2008 onward, focusing on program outputs, outcomes, and associated expenditures. Several administrative datasets and official sources were analyzed, including the legislative acts database, analytical reports on cancer screening programs, and cancer reporting forms. Trends in key indicators were summarized using the average annual percent change (AAPC). From the program’s inception, the absolute number of women screened increased steadily, with an AAPC of 6.23%. In contrast, the proportion of eligible women covered by screening declined over time, particularly following the expansion of the target age groups in 2018. Stage I BC detected through screening accounted for only about 50% of all stage I BC cases diagnosed nationwide, while the contribution of screening to stage II cancers was below 30%. Neither the introduction nor the subsequent expansion of the BC screening program was associated with statistically significant immediate or trend changes in national BC incidence or mortality rates. These findings may inform evidence-based discussions on potential refinements to BC screening policy and practice in Kazakhstan.

Background: Gastric cancer is a serious health issue both globally and in Kazakhstan. Worldwide, gastric cancer ranks fifth in incidence, with the highest rates reported in East Asia, the Andes of South America, and Eastern Europe, while the lowest rates are reported in North America, Northern Europe, Africa, and Southeast Asia. Over 70% of the cases occur in resource-limited countries. In Kazakhstan, gastric cancer ranks third in morbidity and second in mortality, representing a serious clinical and social problem. Annually, 1600 deaths from malignant gastric neoplasms are registered. Peritoneal metastasis is considered one of the most severe complications of gastric cancer and has long been regarded as its terminal stage. The average life expectancy of patients with peritoneal metastasis is only 3-6 months, reflecting a high mortality rate and the limited efficacy of current treatments. Objective: We hypothesize that the prophylactic use of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) may reduce the incidence of peritoneal metastasis. The aim of this study is to evaluate the incidence of peritoneal metastasis following prophylactic PIPAC in patients with gastric cancer. The primary goal of this research is to evaluate whether adding prophylactic PIPAC to standard treatment before neoadjuvant chemotherapy can reduce the incidence of peritoneal metastasis in patients with locally advanced gastric cancer. Methods: This study is a single-center nonrandomized controlled trial with a planned enrollment of 160 patients. All participants will be included in one of the 2 groups: intervention group (PIPAC + perioperative chemotherapy + gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy) or control group (perioperative chemotherapy + gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy). The primary end point is the incidence of peritoneal metastasis, and the secondary end points are overall survival, recurrence-free survival, treatment-related adverse events, and personal satisfaction. Results: As of September 2025, this study is funded and recruiting; 102 participants have already been enrolled. Recruitment is planned to be performed between January 2025 and December 2026. No interim analyses have been performed; primary results are planned for Q1 2027. The manuscript is expected to be published by Q4 2027. Conclusions: Compared to standard chemotherapy, PIPAC has been reported to significantly improve survival rates in patients with peritoneal metastasis of gastric origin. We suggest that the neoadjuvant use of PIPAC may reduce the incidence of peritoneal metastasis and improve long-term survival outcomes. The results of our study will provide key information on the practicality and viability of PIPAC as a prophylactic technique for preventing the progression of gastric cancer. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06784765; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06784765 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/78053

BACKGROUND Gastric cancer is a serious health issue both globally and in Kazakhstan. Worldwide, gastric cancer ranks fifth in incidence, with the highest rates reported in East Asia, the Andes of South America, and Eastern Europe, while the lowest rates are reported in North America, Northern Europe, Africa, and Southeast Asia. Over 70% of the cases occur in resource-limited countries. In Kazakhstan, gastric cancer ranks third in morbidity and second in mortality, representing a serious clinical and social problem. Annually, 1600 deaths from malignant gastric neoplasms are registered. Peritoneal metastasis is considered one of the most severe complications of gastric cancer and has long been regarded as its terminal stage. The average life expectancy of patients with peritoneal metastasis is only 3-6 months, reflecting a high mortality rate and the limited efficacy of current treatments. OBJECTIVE We hypothesize that the prophylactic use of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) may reduce the incidence of peritoneal metastasis. The aim of this study is to evaluate the incidence of peritoneal metastasis following prophylactic PIPAC in patients with gastric cancer. The primary goal of this research is to evaluate whether adding prophylactic PIPAC to standard treatment before neoadjuvant chemotherapy can reduce the incidence of peritoneal metastasis in patients with locally advanced gastric cancer. METHODS This study is a single-center nonrandomized controlled trial with a planned enrollment of 160 patients. All participants will be included in one of the 2 groups: intervention group (PIPAC + perioperative chemotherapy + gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy) or control group (perioperative chemotherapy + gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy). The primary end point is the incidence of peritoneal metastasis, and the secondary end points are overall survival, recurrence-free survival, treatment-related adverse events, and personal satisfaction. RESULTS As of September 2025, this study is funded and recruiting; 102 participants have already been enrolled. Recruitment is planned to be performed between January 2025 and December 2026. No interim analyses have been performed; primary results are planned for Q1 2027. The manuscript is expected to be published by Q4 2027. CONCLUSIONS Compared to standard chemotherapy, PIPAC has been reported to significantly improve survival rates in patients with peritoneal metastasis of gastric origin. We suggest that the neoadjuvant use of PIPAC may reduce the incidence of peritoneal metastasis and improve long-term survival outcomes. The results of our study will provide key information on the practicality and viability of PIPAC as a prophylactic technique for preventing the progression of gastric cancer. CLINICALTRIAL ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06784765; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06784765 INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT PRR1-10.2196/78053