Literature DB >> 21983842

Comparison of non-mesh (Desarda) and mesh (Lichtenstein) methods for inguinal hernia repair among black African patients: a short-term double-blind RCT.

W Manyilirah1, S Kijjambu, A Upoki, J Kiryabwire.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: This study compared the short-term outcomes of the non-mesh (Desarda) and mesh (Lichtenstein) methods of hernia repair among Black African patients, with regard to acute postoperative pain, day of return to normal gait, operative time and complications.
METHODS: A total of 101 participants (51 in the Lichtenstein arm and 50 in the Desarda arm) were enrolled into this single centre double-blind randomised controlled trial. The outcome measures were evaluated at 1-2 h, 3, 7 and 14 days. The power of the study was set at 80%, CI at 95% and a two-sided P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the mean pain score (based on Visual Analogue Scale 0-10) between the study arms [3rd postoperative day (POD): 3.33 ± 1.75 for Lichtenstein and 2.73 ± 1.64 for Desarda, Effect size (CI): 0.59 (-0.088-1.272) and the scores on the 7th POD were 1.31 ± 1.19 for Lichtenstein and 1.31 ± 1.34 for Desarda, effect size (CI): 0.00 (-0.509-0.509)]. No difference was observed in regard to mean day of resumption of normal gait [2.44 ± 1.62 for Lichtenstein and 2.06 ± 1.13 for Desarda, effect size (CI): 0.08 (-0.030-0.193)]. A significant difference was recorded in regard to operative time, with the Desarda repair markedly shorter in duration [15.9 ± 3.52 min for Lichtenstein repair and 10.02 ± 2.93 min for Desarda's repair, effect size (CI): 5.92 (4.62-7.20), P = 0.0001]. Complication rates were similar in the two study arms.
CONCLUSIONS: The results of the study showed that the effectiveness of the Desarda technique with respect to influencing the early clinical outcomes of hernia repair is similar to that of the Lichtenstein method. However, the operator in this study showed that the Desarda repair requires significantly shorter operative time.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21983842     DOI: 10.1007/s10029-011-0883-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hernia        ISSN: 1248-9204            Impact factor:   4.739


  7 in total

1.  Reporting of clinical trials in the JO--the CONSORT Guidelines.

Authors:  R G Newcombe
Journal:  J Orthod       Date:  2000-03

2.  Chronic pain after groin hernia repair.

Authors:  H Kehlet
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 6.939

3.  Physiological repair of inguinal hernia: a new technique (study of 860 patients).

Authors:  M P Desarda
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2005-12-09       Impact factor: 4.739

4.  Determinant factors of pain after ambulatory inguinal herniorrhaphy: a multi-variate analysis.

Authors:  H Lau; F Lee
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 4.739

5.  Three-year results of a randomized clinical trial of lightweight or standard polypropylene mesh in Lichtenstein repair of primary inguinal hernia.

Authors:  S Bringman; S Wollert; J Osterberg; S Smedberg; H Granlund; T-J Heikkinen
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 6.939

6.  Improved outcomes with the Prolene Hernia System mesh compared with the time-honored Lichtenstein onlay mesh repair for inguinal hernia repair.

Authors:  Samir S Awad; Sassi Yallampalli; Sasi Yallalampalli; Ahmad M Srour; Charles F Bellows; Daniel Albo; David H Berger
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 2.565

7.  Surgical physiology of inguinal hernia repair--a study of 200 cases.

Authors:  Mohan P Desarda
Journal:  BMC Surg       Date:  2003-04-16       Impact factor: 2.102

  7 in total
  8 in total

Review 1.  Varying convalescence recommendations after inguinal hernia repair: a systematic scoping review.

Authors:  S Harmankaya; S Öberg; J Rosenberg
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2022-06-29       Impact factor: 2.920

Review 2.  Adult groin hernia surgery in sub-Saharan Africa: a 20-year systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  A Ndong; J N Tendeng; A C Diallo; M L Diao; O Sow; S D Mawuli; M Kalli; A Harissou; O Choua; A D Doumga; A P Togo; M Seck; I Ka; A O Touré; B Diop; P A Ba; P S Diop; M Cissé; R Sani; I Konaté
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2022-09-06       Impact factor: 2.920

3.  Desarda's technique versus Lichtenstein technique for the treatment of primary inguinal hernia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  S H Emile; H Elfeki
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2017-09-09       Impact factor: 4.739

4.  International guidelines for groin hernia management.

Authors: 
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2018-01-12       Impact factor: 4.739

5.  A Comparative Study of Desarda's Versus Lichtenstein's Technique for Uncomplicated Inguinal Hernia Repair.

Authors:  Dhanashree Moghe; Ramlal Prajapati; Amay Banker; Monty Khajanchi
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2022-04-09

Review 6.  Mesh versus non-mesh for inguinal and femoral hernia repair.

Authors:  Kathleen Lockhart; Douglas Dunn; Shawn Teo; Jessica Y Ng; Manvinder Dhillon; Edward Teo; Mieke L van Driel
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2018-09-13

7.  Comparison of Coskun and Lichteinstein hernia repair methods for groin hernia.

Authors:  Tolga Dinç; Hayri Mükerrem Cete; Barış Saylam; Mehmet Vasfi Özer; Arife Polat Düzgün; Faruk Coşkun
Journal:  Ann Surg Treat Res       Date:  2015-08-24       Impact factor: 1.859

8.  A randomised controlled trial of Lichtenstein repair with Desarda repair in the management of inguinal hernias.

Authors:  Sudhir Kumar Jain; Sushant Bhatia; Tariq Hameed; Rehan Khan; Amrita Dua
Journal:  Ann Med Surg (Lond)       Date:  2021-06-12
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.