Desarda Repair No Mesh and Lichtenstein Repair for Inguinal Hernia a Study of 2793 Patients

Abstract

Pedro Rolando Lopez Rodriguez, Eduardo Garcia Castillo, Olga Caridad Leon Gonzalez, Jorge Agustin Satorre Rocha, Luis Marrero Quiala, Lais Angelica Ceruto Ortiz

Introduction: The objective of this study is to compare the outcomes of Desarda repair no mesh and Lichtenstein repair for inguinal hernia.

Methods: This is a prospective randomized controlled trial study of 2793 patients having 2936 hernias operated from January 2002 to December 2020.1434 patients were operated using Lichtenstein repair and 1359 using Desarda repair. The variables like age, sex, location, type of hernia, tolerance to local anesthesia, duration of surgery, pain on the first, third and fifth day, hospital stay, complications, re-explorations, morbidity and time to return to normal activities were analyzed. Follow up period was from 1-10 years (median 6.5 years).

Results: There were no significant differences regarding age, sex, location, type of hernia, and pain in both the groups. The operation time was 53 minutes in Desarda group and 43 minutes in the Lichtenstein group that is significant (p<0.05). The recurrence was 0.4 % in Desarda group and 0.4 % in Lichtenstein group. But, there were 14 cases of infection to the polypropylene mesh in the Lichtenstein group, 7 of this required re-exploration. The morbidity was also significantly more in Lichtenstein group (5,1 %) as compared to Desarda group (3.1 %). The mean time to return to work in the Desarda group was 8.26 days while a mean of 12.58 days was in the Lichtenstein group. The mean hospital stay was 29 hrs. In Desarda group while it was 49 hours in the Lichtenstein group in those patients who were hospitalized.

Conclusions: Desarda repair scores significantly over the Lichtenstein repair in all respects including re-explorations and morbidity. Desarda repair is a better choice as compared with Lichtenstein repair.

PDF