Desarda’s versus Lichtenstein’s mesh repair for inguinal hernia: A longitudinal study.
Objectives: To compare the tissue based Desarda repair with Lichtenstein mesh technique for inguinal hernia in terms of operation time, hospital stay, return to normal activities, cost and post-operative complications such as seroma formation, surgical site infection and recurrence. Study Design: Randomized Controlled trial. Setting: Department of General Surgery Hayatabad Medical Complex, Peshawar, Pakistan. Period: June 2017 to June 2019. Material & Methods: Total of 150 male patients were selected using Non probability consecutive sampling technique. Patients were randomized into two groups using lottery method. 75 patients in group A underwent hernia repair with Desarda no mesh technique and 75 patients in group B underwent hernia repair by performing Lichtenstein mesh technique. Patients were followed up after 2 weeks, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months and 1 year. Data was evaluated using version 22 of SPSS and expressed as a standard deviation, mean. Independent-sample T test was used to compare continuous variables. Categorical variables were compared using Fischer’s exact test. P value of less than 0.05 was considered significant. Results: The mean age of Desarda group was 44.59±10.58 years while it was 44.44±10.30 years in the Lichtenstein group (P=0.932).Mean Operative time was less for Desarda repair (42.08 ± 3.42 min) when compared to Lichtenstein repair (49.01 ± 4.77min) (p=0.000). The average hospital stay after Desarda repair was 2.08±0.27 days and after Lichtenstein repair it was 3.00±0.40 days (p=0.000). After Desarda procedure the average duration to return to work was 11.10±2.32 days while it was 13.92±2.24 days in Lichtenstein procedure (p<0.0001). The total cost of the operation was (Rs 3893±293) in Desarda group and (Rs 7844±175) in the Lichtenstein group (p=0.000). When compared for observed postoperative complications like seroma, wound infection and recurrence in both groups all the p-values were > 0.05 and were non-significant statistically. Conclusion: In comparison to Lichtenstein mesh repair, Desarda technique is cost effective, easy to learn, patients have less hospital stay, less chances of post-operative complications and early return to basic physical activities However Desarda technique is not possible in patients having thin external oblique aponeurosis with divided fibers and here Lichtenstein technique is better option. Further long term randomized control trials are required on large-scale to evaluate this technique further.