腹腔镜阑尾切除术与开腹阑尾切除术对比研究

目的 比较腹腔镜阑尾切除术(LA)与开腹阑尾切除术(OA)临床疗效.方法 随机对2004-02～2008-10腹腔镜阑尾切除术(n=128)和开腹阑尾切除术(n=108)进行比较.结果 腹腔镜阑尾切除术在肠道功能恢复时间和住院时间均较开腹阑尾切除术短(P<0.01);在切口感染发生率方面,腹腔镜阑尾切除术较开腹手术明显降低.而在麻醉时间和手术时间均比开腹阑尾切除术长(P<0.01).结论 腹腔镜阑尾切除术具有创伤小、恢复快、住院时间短及切口感染发生率低等优点.     

腹腔镜阑尾切除术临床观察

目的:探讨腹腔镜阑尾切除术(LA)治疗阑尾炎的效果以及总结经验。方法:回顾分析620例急慢性阑尾炎患者均行LA的临床资料,并进行总结分析。结果:620例阑尾炎患者中,613例行LA,3例行腹腔镜阑尾周围脓肿引流手术,其中有7例患者因异位阑尾根部穿孔伴盲肠水肿,LA不满意而转为开腹,所有患者均顺利完成手术。平均手术时间为(44.6±11.8)min,平均术中出血量(26.7±6.8)ml,平均术后使用抗生素时间(3.6±1.2)d;平均术后住院时间(3.2±0.9)d。术后6例患者出现伤口感染,发生率0.97%,均经换药后治愈。结论:腹腔镜阑尾切除术是一种安全、有效的阑尾切除手术,可以在临床上广泛推广和应用。     

老年急性阑尾炎行腹腔镜与开腹手术的对比分析

目的对比分析腹腔镜(LA)和开腹阑尾切除术(OA)治疗老年急性阑尾炎的手术效果。方法2003年1月至2006年1月行阑尾切除术治疗老年阑尾炎56例,其中LA27例,OA29例。比较2种术式的手术时间、下床活动时间、术后排气时间、疼痛评分、误诊率、止痛药使用率、切口感染率、置管引流率、残余脓肿发生率、住院时间和综合费用。结果LA组和OA组以上各指标(除手术时间和综合费用外)差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论对于老年急性阑尾炎,和OA相比,LA具有创伤小、恢复快、并发症少和平均住院时间短等优点,值得临床推广。     

老年急性阑尾炎患者行开腹切除术与腹腔镜切除术的临床疗效比较

目的比较腹腔镜切除术与开腹切除术治疗老年急性阑尾炎的临床疗效。方法选择该院2013-01~2015-10期间收治65岁以上老年急性阑尾炎并已实施手术患者50例,并根据所选的手术方式,分为腹腔镜阑尾炎手术组(LA组)25例,传统开腹手术组(OA组)25例,记录两组术中及术后相关指标并作数据分析。结果与LA组比较,OA组的手术时间较长,术中出血量较多,切口长度及住院时间较长(P0.01),但综合就医费用较少(P0.01);OA组的术后镇痛药使用和并发症发生率较高(P0.05)。结论老年急性阑尾患者行腹腔镜阑尾炎切除手术具有创伤小、出血少、住院时间短、术后并发症少、镇痛药使用少等优势,值得在临床上推广应用。     

腹腔镜在肝外胆道结石再手术中的应用价值

目的:比较腹腔镜与开腹手术在肝外胆管结石再手术治疗中的临床疗效.方法:将华北理工大学附属开滦总医院收治的244例胆道结石再手术患者依据术式随机划分为腹腔镜组121例和常规开腹手术组123例.比较两组患者手术情况、术后恢复情况及术后并发症情况.结果:腹腔镜组5例中转开腹,中转率4.13%,腹腔镜组患者平均手术时间显著长于开腹组(109.7 min±5.7min vs 97.8 min±7.7 min),术中平均出血量显著少于开腹组(32.7 m L±4.2 m L vs 92.7 m L±6.5 m L,P0.05);腹腔镜组术后肛门排气时间,术后镇痛次数,术后住院时间,均显著低于开腹组(1.7 d±0.1 d vs3.0 d±0.6 d,1.4次±1.0次vs 2.9次±0.7次,8.5 d±0.9 d vs 12.0 d±1.2 d,P0.05);腹腔镜组术后切口感染发生率显著低于开腹组(0%vs 4.88%,P0.05).结论:腹腔镜在肝外胆管结石再手术治疗方面安全有效,并且创伤较小、术后并发症少,术后恢复快,在术者经验丰富的前提下应作为胆道结石再手术的首选手术方式.     

经脐单孔腹腔镜手术治疗小儿复杂性阑尾炎的效果分析

目的分析经脐单孔腹腔镜手术治疗小儿复杂性阑尾炎的效果。方法选择2017-07～2019-10该院收治的复杂性阑尾炎患儿86例,采用随机数字表法将其分为开腹手术组和经脐单孔腹腔镜组,每组43例。开腹手术组行传统开腹手术治疗,经脐单孔腹腔镜组行经脐单孔腹腔镜手术治疗,对比两组患儿的治疗效果。结果经脐单孔腹腔镜组手术时间、手术切口长度、术后肛门排气时间、首次下床活动时间、引流时间和住院时间均明显短于开腹手术组(P 0.05),术中出血量明显少于开腹手术组(P 0.05)。经脐单孔腹腔镜组术后视觉模拟量表(VAS)疼痛评分、止痛药使用率、并发症发生率均显著低于开腹手术组(P 0.05)。两组患儿术后第3天的白细胞(WBC)、C-反应蛋白(CRP)水平均较术前显著降低(P 0.05);但两组术前、术后第3天比较差异无统计学意义(P 0.05)。结论经脐单孔腹腔镜手术治疗小儿复杂性阑尾炎具有较好的临床效果,可准确定位坏死阑尾,有效减轻术后疼痛,术后并发症较少,术后恢复快。     

腹腔镜治疗异位妊娠并出血性休克67例临床分析

目的探讨腹腔镜治疗异位妊娠并出血性休克的有效性、安全性和可行性。方法回顾性分析异位妊娠并出血性休克腹腔镜组67例和开腹组52例的住院时间、手术时间、进腹时间、术中出血量、术后肛门排气时间及并发症等。结果腹腔镜组手术时间为(42.0±7.0)min,与开腹组(45.0±12.0)min相比,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);腹腔镜组术中出血量平均为(34.0±17.0)ml,与开腹组(42.0±7.0)ml相比,差异有统计学意义(P<0.01);进腹时间腹腔镜组为(1.5±1.0)min,明显短于开腹组(6.5±1.0)min(P<0.01);术后肛门排气时间腹腔镜组为(13.5±4.5)h,短于开腹组(37.5±12.5)h(P<0.01);住院时间腹腔镜组为(4.22±1.20)d,明显短于开腹组(6.74±1.67)d(P<0.01)。两组患者均未发生术中及术后并发症和死亡。结论在有效抗休克及完善的生命体征监护及麻醉管理下,结合熟练的腹腔镜操作技术进行腹腔镜手术治疗异位妊娠并出血性休克是安全、有效和可行的。     

腹腔镜与开腹胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔修补手术的临床应用

目的:比较腹腔镜与开腹胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔(gastric and duodenal ulcer perforation,GDUP)修补手术的临床效果.方法:按照实际手术方案将南阳市中心医院收治的92例GDUP患者分为实验组(腹腔镜穿孔修补术)45例和对照组(开腹穿孔修补术)47例,比较两组患者手术情况、术后恢复情况、术后住院时间、治疗总费用、术后并发症发生情况以及溃疡愈合情况.结果:实验组患者手术时间显著高于对照组(118.21 min±32.58 min vs 91.06 min±19.12 m i n),切口长度和术中出血量均显著低于对照组(3.43 cm±0.86 cm vs 16.22 cm±2.17 cm、15.76 m L±2.38 m L vs 95.23 m L±14.79 m L),差异具有统计学意义(P0.05);实验组患者术后视觉模拟疼痛评分(visual analogue scale,VAS)评分、胃肠道功能恢复时间和下床活动时间均显著低于对照组(3.01分±1.06分v s 6.69分±1.21分、80.26h±16.11 h vs 122.08 h±20.87 h、1.92 d±0.68 d vs 3.39 d±1.07 d),差异具有统计学意义(P0.05);实验组患者术后并发症总发生率显著低于对照组(4.44%vs 25.53%),差异具有统计学意义(P0.05);实验组患者术后住院时间显著低于对照组(5.15 d±1.52 d vs 9.09 d±2.21 d),治疗总费用显著高于对照组(23989.44元±388.26元vs 19151.06元±226.75元),差异具有统计学意义(P0.05);两组患者术后溃疡愈合情况比较(37.78%vs 36.17%、13.33%vs 10.64%、31.11%vs34.04%、17.78%vs 19.15%),差异无统计学意义(P0.05).结论:腹腔镜穿孔修补术创伤小、术后恢复快、并发症少、住院时间短,能达到开腹穿孔修补术相似的溃疡愈合效果,更具临床优势.     

小儿腹腔镜阑尾切除术的临床应用

急性阑尾炎是小儿最常见的急腹症之一。腹腔镜在小儿阑尾切除术的临床应用，为小儿急性阑尾炎开创了又一新的治疗方法。腹腔镜阑尾切除术(LA)临床上现应用得越来越广泛，并被多数外科医生和病人所接受。为了探讨小儿LA临床应用价值，我们对随机抽取我院2002-10／2004-10收治的小儿LA36例，与同期开腹小儿阑尾切除术(OA)40例进行回顾性比较分析，现将结果总结报告如下。     

腹腔镜与开腹胆总管探查术治疗胆总管结石的临床效果比较

目的:比较腹腔镜胆总管探查术(laparoscopic common bile duct exploration,LCBDE)与开腹胆总管探查术(open common bile duct exploration,OCBDE)治疗胆总管结石的临床效果.方法:随机抽取96例胆总管结石患者的临床资料,按照实际手术方案分为实验组(LCBDE)50例和对照组(OCBDE)46例,比较两组患者手术情况、术后情况以及并发症发生情况.结果:两组患者手术时间及术中出血量比较(130.33 min±11.06 min vs 128.68 min±10.88min)、(68.86 m L±10.97 m L vs 70.92 m L±11.26 m L),差异无统计学意义(P0.05);实验组患者术后镇痛次数、胃肠功能恢复时间、术后住院时间及治疗总费用均显著低于对照组,(1.27次±0.50次vs 1.68次±0.72次)、(29.82 h±5.69 h vs 34.91 h±5.70 h)、(7.22 d±1.15 d vs 10.11 d±1.33 d)、(10068.44元±113.08元vs 13025.75元±116.20元),差异具有统计学意义(P0.05);实验组患者术后切口感染发生率显著低于对照组,(0.00%vs8.70%),差异具有统计学意义(P0.05).结论:LCBDE与OCBDE比较,创伤小、术后恢复时间短、治疗费用低,是治疗胆总管结石的优选手术方案.     

Results of laparoscopicvs. conventional appendectomy in complicated appendicitis

BACKGROUND: Although many trials show some advantages of laparoscopic appendectomy over open appendectomy, the value of laparoscopic appendectomy is still controversial. Specifically the question of whether there are benefits of laparoscopic appendectomy over open appendectomy in complicated appendicitis remains to be answered. METHODS: Of 1,106 consecutive appendectomies (717 laparoscopic appendectomies, 330 open appendectomies, and 59 conversions) between 1989 and 1999, the results of 299 patients with complicated appendicitis (defined by perforation, abscess, or peritonitis) were analyzed retrospectively to compare the complications of laparoscopic appendectomy and conversion (intention-to-treat group) with those of open appendectomy. RESULTS: Complicated appendicitis (n=299) was treated by laparoscopic appendectomy in 171 patients, by open appendectomy in 82 patients, and by conversion in 46 patients. Laparoscopic appendectomy and conversion showed fewer abdominal wall complications than open appendectomy (13/217; 6 percentvs. 15/82; 18.3 percent;P<0.003), which led to a decrease of the total complication rate in the intention-to-treat group (21/217; 9.7 percentvs. 19/82; 23.1 percent;P=0.004). The rate of intra-abdominal abscess formation was nearly the same after laparoscopic appendectomy (4.1 percent) and open appendectomy (4.9 percent). The total complication rate was higher in complicated appendicitis than in acute appendicitis (P<0.005) but was independent of the laparoscopic technique. The conversion rate was higher in complicated appendicitis than in acute appendicitis (21.2vs. 2.3 percent;P<0.001). CONCLUSION: In comparison with open appendectomy, laparoscopic appendectomy (by itself and in an intention-to-treat view) leads to a significant reduction of early postoperative complications in complicated appendicitis and therefore should be considered as the procedure of choice.Preliminary results of our first laparoscopically treated patients were presented in 1998 in German (Barkhausen S, Wullstein C, Gross E. Laparoskopische versus konventionelle Appendektomie—ein Vergleich hinsichtlich der frühpostoperativen Komplikationen. Zentralbl Chir 1998;123:858–62).     

Laparoscopic Appendectomy for Acute Appendicitis: Is This a Feasible Option for Developing Countries?

Background/Aim:

The role of laparoscopic appendectomy is still not well defined in the literature. This study was conducted to evaluate the feasibility of laparoscopic appendectomy at a university hospital in a developing country.

Patients and Methods:

Patients undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) from August 2002 to August 2006 were identified. For each case, a control was selected from patients undergoing open appendectomy (OA) during the same year by systematic sampling. The groups were compared in terms of duration of surgery, requirement of narcotic analgesia, length of hospital stay, postoperative complications and the overall cost for each patient.

Results:

A total of 68 patients underwent laparoscopic appendectomy during the study period. Median duration of surgery was 82 minutes in LA group and 70 minutes in OA group (P < 0.001). Forty-five patients in LA group and 64 in OA group required narcotic analgesia (P < 0.001). Median length of hospital stay (P = 0.672) and postoperative complications (P = 0.779) were comparable in both groups. Median cost of hospital stay was Pakistani Rupees (PKR) 47121/in LA group and PKR 39318/in OA group, the difference being significant (P = 0.001).

Conclusions:

Laparoscopic appendectomy is feasible in developing countries with similar postoperative outcome and less requirement of narcotic analgesia. The duration of surgery and overall cost were significantly higher and efforts should be made to develop expertise and reduce operative time with resultant decrease in cost. Development of standardized protocols for discharge of patients from the hospital after LA may further reduce the cost and benefit patients in developing countries.     

A Retrospective Study of Two-port Appendectomy and its Comparison with Open Appendectomy and Three-port Appendectomy

Background/Aims:

To establish the efficacy of two-port appendectomy as an alternative to standard laparoscopic and open appendectomy in the management of acute appendicitis.

Materials and Methods:

Of the 151 patients included in the study, 47 patients were in the open group, 61 in two-port and 43 patients were included in the three-port group. Only patients with uncomplicated acute appendicitis were included in the study. Patients with complicated appendicitis like perforated appendix, appendicular lump and appendicular abscess were excluded from the study. Patients converted to open procedure after initial diagnosis and patients with other pathology in addition to appendicitis were also excluded. Patients with recurrent appendicitis and chronic appendicitis were excluded. The total number of excluded cases was 50. Data were compared with cases of open and three-port appendectomy.

Results:

The mean operative time was 43.94, 35.74, and 59.65 min (SD: 18.91, 11.06, 19.29) for open, two-port, and three-port appendectomy groups respectively. Mean length of stay in days was 3.02, 1.93, and 2.26 (SD: 1.27, 1.04,1.09) for open, two-port, and three-port appendectomy groups respectively. Surgical site infection was significantly lower (P = 0.03) in laparoscopy group as compared to that in open appendectomy group. Seven patients (4.63%) developed surgical site infection, 5 (10.63%) in the open and 2 (1.92%) in the laparoscopy group. Surgical site infection was 1.63% and 2.32% in two-port and three-port appendectomy groups respectively.

Conclusions:

For uncomplicated appendicitis, the two-port appendectomy technique significantly reduces operative time as well as length of hospital stay. It also reduces surgical site infection as compared to open appendectomy group.     

Laparoscopy-Assisted Single-Port Appendectomy in Children: Safe Alternative also for Perforated Appendicitis?

Because of its low complication rate, favorable safety, cost-effectiveness, and technical ease, mono-instrumental, laparoscopy-assisted single-port appendectomy (SPA) has been the standard therapy for appendicitis in our department since its introduction 10 years ago. We report our experience with this technique and compare its outcome to open appendectomy (OA).The records of all children who underwent appendectomy at our institution over a period of 8 years were analyzed retrospectively. Patient baseline data, markers of inflammation, operative time, length of hospital stay, complication rate according to the classification of Clavien-Dindo, and histologic grading were assessed to compare the 2 surgical techniques (SPA and OA). The chi square test, the Student''s t test and the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test were used to analyze the data and the comparisons of the mean values. A P value < 0.05 was considered significant.Overall, 975 patients were included in the study. A total of 555 children had undergone SPA and 420 had been treated by OA. Median operative time of SPA was longer than that of OA (60.8 min vs 57.4 min; P < 0.05). Length of hospital stay after SPA was shorter than after OA (4.4 days and 5.9 days, respectively; P < 0.001). The overall complication rate was lower for SPA than that for OA (4.0% vs 5.7%), but the difference of complications for SPA and OA was not statistically significant (P < 0.22). SPA was successfully performed in 85.9% of children. In 53.8% of patients with perforated appendicitis, no conversion was required. In the group of children with perforated appendicitis, the complication rate of ∼20% was independent of the surgical technique applied.With respect to operative time, length of hospital stay, and postoperative complication rate, SPA is not inferior to OA. SPA is safe and efficient, even in the management of perforated appendicitis.     

Importance of the new radiographic sign of fecal loading in the cecum in the presence of acute appendicitis in comparison with other inflammatory diseases of the right abdomen

BACKGROUND: The value of plain abdominal radiography in acute appendicitis has not been completely studied. Therefore, the purpose of this investigation was to verify a new radiographic sign: the presence of fecal loading in the cecum for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis in comparison with other diseases of the right abdomen. METHODS: A total of 470 consecutive patients of both sexes admitted to the hospital due to acute abdominal pain were prospectively studied. Group 1 (n=170), the acute appendicitis group, included patients subjected to an abdominal radiographic study a few hours before surgical treatment; group 2 (n=100) had right nephrolithiasis; group 3 (n=100) had right acute inflammatory pelvic disease; and group 4 (n=100) had acute cholecystitis. RESULTS: The sign of fecal loading in the cecum was present in 165 patients in group 1, in 19% of those in group 2, in 12% of those in group 3, and in 13% in group 4. The sensitivity of the radiographic sign for acute appendicitis was 97.05% and its specificity was 85.33%. The positive predictive value of this sign for acute appendicitis was 78.94% and its negative predictive value was 98.08%. This sign disappeared in 66 (94.28%) of the 70 patients who had plain abdominal radiographs on the first postoperative day. CONCLUSIONS: The radiographic image of fecal loading in the cecum is associated with acute appendicitis and disappears after appendectomy. This sign is uncommon in other acute inflammatory diseases of the right side of the abdomen.     

Laparoscopic apendicectomy vs open approach for the treatment of acute appendicitis

BackgroundThere is no international consensus on the approach of choice for performing appendectomy.AimsTo analyze and compare open and laparoscopic approaches in the surgical treatment of acute appendicitis.Material and MethodsA retrospective study was carried out on patients over 14-years-old operated on for suspected acute appendicitis between January 2007 and December 2009. Variables were: age, sex, body mass index, specialized surgeon or resident in training, progression duration, conversion rate, use of drains, abdominal cavity irrigation, macroscopic appearance of the appendix, onset time of anesthesia, ASA classification, postoperative hospital stay, resumption of intake of liquids, and complications. The patients were divided into two groups: laparoscopic approach (LA) and open approach (OA).ResultsA total of 533 patients were enrolled (290 LA and 243 OA). Onset time of anesthesia was 75 min (30-190 min) in LA vs 55 min (20-160 min) in OA (p<0,0001). Complications: intraabdominal abscesses in 17 LA cases vs 13 OA cases (p=0,79); surgical wound alterations in 16 LA cases vs 47 OA cases (p=0,0001); incisional hernias in 2 LA cases (1%) vs 10 OA cases (p=0,008). There were no statistically significant differences in postoperative hospital stay (3 days), resumption of intake of liquids (1 day) or readmission rate (8%).ConclusionsThere are fewer surgical wound alterations and incisional hernias with the laparoscopic approach, but there is higher cost, lengthier surgery duration, and a longer learning curve. Our results cannot provide a clear indication for one approach or the other, and therefore each case must be evaluated on an individual basis.     

Experience with Laparoscopic Appendectomy —The Technique and Our Views of its Indications—

Abstract: Since June, 1991 a laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) was performed on eleven patients with suspected appendicitis which could not be confirmed by the conventional diagnostic methods. The patients included 7 males and 4 females, with a mean age of 27, 9, ranging from 16 to 46 years. No postoperative complications were encountered. The laparoscopic diagnoses included gangrenous appendicitis in 2, suppurative appendicitis in 2, catarrhal appendicitis in 4, salpingitis in 2 and an appendiceal mass in one patient (Case 7). Histopathological diagnoses were phlegmonous appendicitis in 3, mucinous cystadenoma in one and catarrhal appendicitis in 7 patients. Two cases of salpingitis and a case with ovarian bleeding were treated conservatively after incidental laparoscopic removal of the appendix. Case 7 was histopathologically diagnosed as having mucinous cystadenoma. The patients’postoperative hospital stay was from 5 to 8 days, with an average of 6.9 days. All patients had been given the permission to be discharged by the third POD but they stayed longer because of benefits given by the health insurance system very specific to Japan. LA in our clinic has so far been limited to selected patients in whom the diagnosis of appendicitis could not been confirmed and laparoscopic examination was indicated, mainly due to manpower problems involving surgeons, anesthetists and operating room nurses. However, LA provides not only benefits for patients but also several merits for surgeons including better exposure of the operating field in most cases when compared with an open appendectomy. We feel, therefore, that the indications for LA might be extended more widely, probably to most cases of appendicitis.     

The justification for laparoscopic appendectomy]

Laparoscopic appendicectomy (LA), in contrast to open appendicectomy (OA), is not generally accepted as the treatment of choice for suspected appendicitis because it is technically difficult, not readily available everywhere, takes longer to perform, is expensive, and is associated with an increased incidence of intra-abdominal abscesses. However, LA has shown a superior outcome compared to an OA in terms of less postoperative pain, earlier hospital discharge, quicker return to normal activity and work and decreased incidence of wound infection. Furthermore, a diagnostic laparoscopy is valuable in case of an equivocal diagnosis of appendicitis especially in premenopausal women and obese individuals because it allows a thorough examination of the whole abdomen under direct vision. It, therefore, permits accurate diagnosis and hence reduces the negative appendectomy rate. Nevertheless, before endorsing routine and widespread use of LA, it is essential that this technique is critically evaluated in well designed, controlled, randomised, prospective trials clearly showing major benefits to the patient in terms of quicker hospital discharge, reduced postoperative pain, decreased wound infection and early return to full activities.     

Diagnosis underlying appendectomy and coeliac disease risk

BACKGROUND: Earlier studies suggest that appendectomy is associated with a substantially reduced risk of certain types of bowel inflammation such as ulcerative colitis, particularly where the underlying diagnosis is acute appendicitis. Previous research on appendectomy and coeliac disease is inconsistent, based on small numbers with retrospective data collection, and has not differentiated between different diagnoses underlying appendectomy. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association of diagnosis underlying appendectomy with coeliac disease. METHODS: We used Cox regression to study the risk of later appendectomy in more than 14,000 individuals with coeliac disease and 68,000 referents without coeliac disease, identified through the Swedish National Registers 1964-2003, and conditional logistic regression to study the risk of coeliac disease associated with a history of prior appendectomy. Appendectomy was categorised according to the underlying diagnosis: perforated appendicitis, non-perforated appendicitis, and appendectomy without appendicitis. RESULTS: Overall, coeliac disease was negatively associated with perforated appendicitis (hazard ratio=0.78, 95% confidence interval=0.60-1.01), not associated with non-perforated appendicitis (hazard ratio=1.11, 95% confidence interval=0.99-1.25), but positively associated with appendectomy without appendicitis (hazard ratio=1.58, 95% confidence interval=1.32-1.89). The magnitudes of the relative risks were similar irrespective of whether coeliac disease occurred prior to or after appendectomy. CONCLUSION: Coeliac disease and perforated appendicitis are negatively associated irrespective of the timing of the conditions. Not surprisingly, CD increases the risk for appendectomy without appendicitis.