A STUDY OF COMPARISON OF PURE TISSUE REPAIR (DESERDA) AND PROSTHETIC REPAIR (LICHTENSTEIN) METHODS FOR INGUINAL HERNIA REPAIR-A COMPARATIVE STUDY

Author:

Chauhan Harish1,Patel Daxesh2,Gaudani Nishan3

Affiliation:

1. Additional Professor , General Surgery, SMIMER Hospital ,Surat

2. Assistant Professor , General Surgery, SMIMER Hospital ,Surat

3. 3rd year Resident, General Surgery, SMIMER Hospital ,Surat

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: An ideal hernia repair should be tension free, tissue based, with no potential damage to vital structures, no long term pain or complications and no recurrence. Although Lichtenstein's prosthetic repair is simple and safe, but it is also correlated with risk of infections, recurrence, chronic pain, testicular atrophy and infertility, foreign body sensations and chronic groin sepsis. Desarda hernia repair does not require mesh and provide more physiological support. It is simple, easy to learn. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: a) To compare the operative time, postoperative stay and time required to return normal activity between two groups. b) To compare early complication rate and late complication rate between two groups. MATERIALAND METHODS: This observational study was conducted among patients admitted with the diagnosis of primary inguinal hernia in SMIMER, Surat. The patients were randomly allocated to either Lichtenstein or Desarda method of hernia repair. Operating time, post operative stay and duration of return to normal activity were recorded. Early complications were noted and the patients were followed up to 12 months for late complications (chronic pain, foreign body sensation, and recurrence). RESULTS: The mean operative time and postoperative stay did not show signicant differ for both groups. Patients operated by Desarda technique returned to normal activity signicantly early by 12.2 ± 2.54 days as compared to patients operated by Lichtenstein techniques (14.0 ± 2.76 days, p = 0.01). Most common early complication in both groups was pain (D group; 40.0%, Lgroup: 45.2%) followed by wound infection (D group; 8.0%, Lgroup: 6.5%) and seroma (D group; 0.0%, Lgroup: 3.2%). Occurrence of chronic pain was more in Lgroup (58.1%) as compared to D group (16.0%, p=0.001). None of the patients from D group had foreign body sensation. Foreign body sensation was observed only in ve patients of Lgroup (16.1%). Recurrence rate during one year in Lgroup (6.5%) was higher than D group (4.0%). CONCLUSION: Early return to work was potential benet of Desarda repair. Early complications were similar in both procedures. Desarda repair has lower incidence of chronic pain and foreign body sensation. However, there is no signicant difference for chronic pain in Desarda group when compared in same patients operated bilaterally with different technique. This study was conducted with small sample size with short follow up. Therefore, result of late complication in the present study may insufcient to conclude the probability of occurrence as longer follow up and larger sample size is required.

Publisher

World Wide Journals

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3