| Literature DB >> 35547436 |
Dhanashree Moghe1, Ramlal Prajapati1, Amay Banker1, Monty Khajanchi1.
Abstract
Purpose Since mesh-related long-term morbidity like chronic groin pain and vas entrapment in patients with an inguinal hernia is a concern, tissue-based repairs should be revaluated. There have been few prospective studies comparing the outcomes of Lichtenstein's technique and Desarda's technique for the repair of uncomplicated inguinal hernias. So, we conducted this prospective study comparing the two techniques. Methods This is a single-center prospective observational study conducted for a period of one year (2019). The patients who underwent surgery for uncomplicated inguinal hernia either by Lichtenstein's technique or Desarda's technique were included in the study. The two techniques were compared with respect to recurrence rates, immediate postoperative pain, chronic groin pain, wound infection, and the time taken to return to activities of daily living (ADL). Results There was no significant difference in the recurrence rates, chronic groin pain, wound infection, or return to ADL between Lichtenstein's technique and Desarda's technique of inguinal hernia repair. The mean duration to return to ADL was lesser when patients underwent Desarda's repair though this difference was not significant. Conclusion Desarda's tissue repair was found comparable to Lichtenstein's mesh repair in terms of recurrence and postoperative morbidity, immediate postoperative pain, chronic groin pain, wound infection, and the time taken to return to ADL. Desarda's technique may be considered as an alternative to mesh-based repairs to avoid long-term mesh-related morbidity for uncomplicated indirect hernias in the younger population.Entities:
Keywords: desarda repair; groin hernia; inguinal hernia; lichtenstein repair; mesh
Year: 2022 PMID: 35547436 PMCID: PMC9086529 DOI: 10.7759/cureus.23998
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cureus ISSN: 2168-8184
Patient demographics
Categorical variables are written as count (percentage). Age is written as mean (± standard deviation).
LR - Lichtenstein's repair; DR - Desarda's repair
| LR group (n=25) | DR group (n=25) | p-value | |
| Age | 27 (±4.2) | 28 (±6.9) | 0.886 |
| Male sex | 25 (100%) | 25 (100%) | - |
| Hernia | |||
| Direct | 3 (12%) | 5 (20%) | 0.554 |
| Indirect | 22 (88%) | 20 (80%) | 0.766 |
| Site | |||
| Left | 11 (44%) | 10 (40%) | 0.377 |
| Right | 14 (56%) | 15 (60%) | 0.763 |
| Previous surgery | 0 | 2 (8%) | - |
Surgical wound as per the Southampton score
Categorical variables are written as count (percentage).
POD - postoperative day; LR - Lichtenstein's repair; DR - Desarda's repair
| LR group (n=25) | DR group (n=25) | p-value | |
| POD 1 | |||
| Grade 0 | 15 (60%) | 16 (64%) | 0.886 |
| Grade 1 | 10 (40%) | 9 (36%) | 0.876 |
| POD 10 | |||
| Grade 0 | 17 (68%) | 18 (72%) | 0.677 |
| Grade 1 | 8 (32%) | 7 (28%) | 0.874 |
| At six months | |||
| Grade 0 | 25 (100%) | 25 (100%) | - |
| Grade 1 | - | - | - |
Assessment of postoperative pain using the visual analogue scale (VAS)
Categorical variables are written as count (percentage) or mean (±standard deviation).
POD - postoperative day; LR - Lichtenstein's repair; DR - Desarda's repair
| LR group (n=25) | DR group (n=25) | p-value | |
| POD 1 | 0.296 | ||
| 0-3 | 17 (68%) | 16 (64%) | |
| 4-7 | 8 (32%) | 7 (28%) | |
| 8-10 | - | 2 (8%) | |
| Mean | 2.55 (±0.89) | 2.65 (±1.81) | |
| POD 10 | - | ||
| 0-3 | 25 (100%) | 25 (100%) | |
| 4-7 | - | - | |
| 8-10 | - | - | |
| Mean | 1.3 (±0.66) | 1.2 (±0.52) | |
| At six months | - | ||
| 0-3 | 25 (100%) | 25 (100%) | |
| 4-7 | - | - | |
| 8-10 | - | - | |
| Mean | 0.8 (±0.84) | 1 (±0.7) |
Postoperative outcomes
Categorical variables are written as count (percentage) or mean (±standard deviation).
ADL - activities of daily living; LR - Lichtenstein's repair; DR - Desarda's repair
| LR group (n=25) | DR group (n=25) | p-value | |
| Duration of stay, days | 1.12 (±0.33) | 1.08 (±0.27) | 0.988 |
| Time to return to ADL, days | 1.9 (±1.01) | 1.52 (±0.84) | 0.712 |
| Recurrence | 0 | 0 | - |