Abstract
Background: The surgical treatment of inguinal hernias has evolved through several stages to reach a modern and successful era . Though Lichtenstein’s prosthetic repair using prolene mesh has been popular lately, it is not a tissue based repair and hence cannot be consider ideal. Hence a search for ideal hernia repair is still underway and Desarda Procedure might be the procedure satisfying the criteria for an ideal hernia repair. It is simple, easy to learn and based on the concept of providing a strong, mobile and physiologically dynamic posterior inguinal wall.
Settings and Design: This is a comparative study carried out in 56 patients, out of which 28 underwent Lichtenstein’s repair and 28 underwent Desarda repair, admitted in surgical ward in Sir Sayajirao Hospital, Baroda.
Materials and Methods: Data was collected by meticulous history taking, careful clinical examination, appropriate radiological, haematological investigation, operative findings and follow-up of the cases
Results: After 6 months follow up only 3.6% patients had chronic groin pain compared to 10.7% in Mesh repair. The postoperative pain is lesser with Desarda technique and patients ambulate faster. There was no recurrence seen in both groups during the 6 months follow-up period.
Conclusion: Desarda repair is superior to mesh repair in short term outcomes and in certain long term outcomes like chronic groin pain.
Keywords: Desarda repair, Lichtenstein’s repair, Inguinal hernia, Post operative pain.
References
1. Ostrow B, Guelph. What is the Most Appropriate Repair for Groin Hernias in Africa? Surgery in Africa. Canada 2006.
2. Kingsnorth A, LeBlanc K (2003) Hernias: inguinal and incisional. Lancet 362(9395):1561-1571.
3. Desarda MP. Physiological repair of inguinal hernia-A new technique (study of 860 patients). Hernia. 2006;10:143-146.
4. Fitzgibbons, Robert J. (2005). "Can We Be Sure Polypropylene Mesh Causes Infertility?". Annals of Surgery 241 (4): 559–6.
5. Stephen J Nixon, Bruce Tulloh. (2014), Bailey and Love's Short Practice of Surgery; 26th edition. Edited by N. S. Williams , C. J. K. Bulstrode and P. R. O'Connell . Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2013. P.957-8.
6. Desarda M, Ghosh A: Comparative Study of Open Mesh Repair and Desarda's Nonmesh Repair in a District Hospital in India. East and Central Africa n Journal of Surgery. 2006; 11(2):28-34.
7. Desarda MP: Surgical Physiology of Inguinal Hernia Repair - a Study of 200 Cases. BMC Surgery 2003; 3.
8. Situma MS: Comparison of Desarda and Modified Bassini Inguinal Hernia Repair in Mulago Hospital. Kampala: Makerere University 2008.
9. Manyilirah W, Kijjambu S, Upoki A, Kiryabwire J. Comparison of non-mesh (Desarda) and mesh (Lichtenstein) methods for inguinal hernia repair among black African patients: a short-term double-blind RCT. Hernia. 2012; 16 (2): 133--144.
10. Szopinski J, Dabrowiecki S, Pierscinski S, Jackowski M, Jaworski M, Szuflet Z. Desarda versus Lichtenstein technique for primary inguinal hernia treatment: 3-year results of a randomized clinical trial. World J of surgery. 2012; 36 (5): 984--992.
11. P.R.l. Rodríguez, P.P. Herrera, O.L. Gonzalez, J. R.C. Alonso, H.S.R. Blanco. ISSN 2073-9990 East Cent. Afr. J. surg July/August; 2013 Volume 18 (2).
12. Youssef T, El-Alfy K, Farid M. Randomized clinical trial of Desarda versus Lichtenstein repair for treatment of primary inguinal hernia. Int J Surg. 2015 Aug; 20:28-34. doi: 10.1016/j.i-jsu.2015.05.055. Epub 2015 Jun 11.
13. Mitura K, Romanczuk M (2008). Comparison between two methods of inguinal hernia surgery – Lichtenstein and Desarda. Pol Merkur Lekarski 24:392-395.
14. Zaheer Abbas, Sujeet Kumar Bhat, Monika Koul, Rakesh Bhat. Desarda’s no mesh repair versus lichtenstein’s open mesh repair of inguinal hernia: a comparative study. DOI:10.14260/jemds/2015/1910. J of Evolution of Med and Dent Sci/ eISSN-2278-4802,pISSN-2278-4748/ Vol. 4/ Issue77/Sept 24, 2015.
15. Desarda MP (2008) No-mesh inguinal hernia repair with continuous absorbable sutures: a dream or reality? A study of 229 patients. Saudi J Gastro 14:122–127.
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18535/jmscr/v5i5.28
