scholarly journals Desarda repair no Mesh and Lichtenstein repair for inguinal hernia (A study of 2793 patients)

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (9) ◽  
pp. 01-05
Author(s):  
Pedro Rolando Lòpez Rodrìguez ◽  
Eduardo Garcia Castillo ◽  
Olga Caridad Leòn Gonzàlez ◽  
Jorge Agustin Satorre Rocha ◽  
Luis Marrero Quiala ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Inguinal Hernia ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Lichtenstein Repair ◽  
Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Duration Of Surgery ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Location Type

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.

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

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Inguinal Hernia ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Lichtenstein Repair ◽  
Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Duration Of Surgery ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Location Type

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

Modifield Desarda Repair and Hernioplastia Lichtenstein Repair for Inguinal Hernia

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 01-05
Author(s):  
Pedro Rolando Lòpez Rodrìguez ◽  
Eduardo Garcia Castillo ◽  
Olga Caridad Leòn Gonzàlez ◽  
Jorge Agustin Satorre Rocha ◽  
Luis Marrero Quiala ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Inguinal Hernia ◽  
Operative Time ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Lichtenstein Repair ◽  
Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Location Type ◽  
Mean Time

Introduction: The objective of this study is to compare the outcomes of Modified Desarda repair no mesh and Lichtenstein repair for inguinal hernia. Methods: This is a prospective randomized controlled trial study of 1342 patients having 1394 hernias operated from January 2008 to December 2020. 690 patients were operated using Lichtenstein repair and 652 using Desarda repair. The demographie data (Age,Sex) , hernia type and location , anesthetic , operative time , postoperative pain and complications were analysed. Results: There were no significant differences regarding age, sex, location, type of hernia, and pain in both the groups. The operation time was 52 minutes in Modified Desarda group and 42 minutes in the Lichtenstein group that is significant (p<0.05). The recurrence was 0.0 % in Modified Desarda group and 0.28 % in Lichtenstein group. But, there were 9 cases of infection to the polypropylene mesh in the Lichtenstein group, 2 of this required re-exploration. The morbidity was also significantly more in Lichtenstein group (7,6 %) as compared to Modified Desarda group (3.8 %). The mean time to return to work in the Modified 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 Modified Desarda group while it was 49 hours in the Lichtenstein group in those patients who were hospitalized. Conclusions: The modified Desarda repair scores significantly on Lichtenstein repair in most of all aspects, including reexplorations and morbidity. Modified Desarda repair is a better option compared to Lichtenstein repair.

scholarly journals SHOULDICE VERSUS LICHTENSTEIN REPAIR

2010 ◽  
Vol 17 (03) ◽  
pp. 355-359
Author(s):  
WASEEM SADIQ AWAN ◽  
MUHAMMAD REHMAN GULZAR ◽  
GHULAM MUSTAFA ARAIN ◽  
Raza Younus
Keyword(s):  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Lichtenstein Repair ◽  
Tension Free ◽  
Shouldice Repair ◽  
Medical College ◽  
Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Surgical Unit

Objective: To compare the results of tissue based Shouldice repair with the Lichtenstein tension free repair of inguinal hernia. Design: A prospective randomized controlled trial. Period: From Jan 2004 to Dec 2006. Setting: Surgical Unit-II, Allama Iqbal Medical College / Jinnah Hospital Lahore, Pakistan. Patients & Methods: A total of 156 patients were included in this study were equally divided into two groups. Results: The mean age was 45 years. After a follow up of upto 2 years there was significant difference in the recurrence rate. It was 5% in the Shouldice group and 1.28 %in the Lichtenstein group. Similarly chronic pain was also much higher i.e. 5% in the Shouldice group compared to 1.28% in Lichtenstein Group. The rate of hematoma and seroma formation was the same (1.28%) in both groups, however infection was seen slightly more in Lichtenstein repair (3.84%) as compared to Shouldice repair (2.56%). Conclusion: Tension free Lichtenstein technique was found to be superior to the tissue based Shouldice repair with respect to post operative complications and recurrence.

scholarly journals Outcomes of endoscopic suturectomy with postoperative helmet therapy in bilateral coronal craniosynostosis

2016 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 281-286 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Alex Rottgers ◽  
Subash Lohani ◽  
Mark R. Proctor
Keyword(s):  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Head Circumference ◽  
Major Complication ◽  
Csf Leak ◽  
Perioperative Morbidity ◽  
Syndromic Craniosynostosis ◽  
Duration Of Surgery ◽  
Coronal Synostosis ◽  
The Mean

OBJECTIVE Historically, bilateral frontoorbital advancement (FOA) has been the keystone for treatment of turribrachycephaly caused by bilateral coronal synostosis. Early endoscopic suturectomy has become a popular technique for treatment of single-suture synostosis, with acceptable results and minimal perioperative morbidity. Boston Children's Hospital has adopted this method of treating early-presenting cases of bilateral coronal synostosis. METHODS A retrospective review of patients with bilateral coronal craniosynostosis who were treated with endoscopic suturectomy between 2005 and 2012 was completed. Patients were operated on between 1 and 4 months of age. Hospital records were reviewed for perioperative morbidity, length of stay, head circumference and cephalic indices, and the need for further surgery. RESULTS Eighteen patients were identified, 8 males and 10 females, with a mean age at surgery of 2.6 months (range 1–4 months). Nine patients had syndromic craniosynostosis. The mean duration of surgery was 73.3 minutes (range 50–93 minutes). The mean blood loss was 40 ml (range 20–100 ml), and 2 patients needed a blood transfusion. The mean duration of hospital stay was 1.2 days (range 1–2 days). There was 1 major complication in the form of a CSF leak. The mean follow-up was 37 months (range 6–102 months). Eleven percent of nonsyndromic patients required a subsequent FOA; 55.6% of syndromic patients underwent FOA. The head circumference percentiles and cephalic indices improved significantly. CONCLUSIONS Early endoscopic suturectomy successfully treats the majority of patients with bilateral coronal synostosis, and affords a short procedure time, a brief hospital stay, and an expedited recovery. Close follow-up is needed to detect patients who will require a secondary FOA due to progressive suture fusion or resynostosis of the released coronal sutures.

scholarly journals Desarda’s versus Lichtenstein technique of inguinal hernia repair

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 92
Author(s):  
Obaid Syed
Keyword(s):  
Inguinal Hernia ◽  
Hernia Repair ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Complication Rate ◽  
Mesh Repair ◽  
Post Operative Pain ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Duration Of Surgery ◽  
Operative Complications ◽  
The Mean

Background: Ideal method for modern hernia surgery should be simple, cost effective, safe, tension free and permanent. The Lichtenstein operation to a great extent achieves this entire goal. The Lichtenstein mesh repair is associated with complications, postoperative dysfunction and high cost composite meshes. Desarda's technique, became a new surgical option for tissue-based inguinal hernia repair. The present study was designed to evaluate and compare the effectiveness and complications of the Desarda’s repair with Lichtenstein tension-free mesh repair for treatment of inguinal hernia in a developing country.Methods: 200 patients with unilateral, primary, reducible inguinal hernia were selected. Included patients were randomly divided into two groups. Studied parameters were Duration of surgery, intra operative complications, post-operative Pain, Duration of hospital stay, return to normal activities, post-operative complications and recurrences.Results: There were a total of 100 patients each group. There was no statistically significant difference in duration of surgery and complication rate between the two groups. Difference in mean VAS was not statistically significant. The mean hospital stay in Desarda’s technique was 2.5 days while it was 2.6 days in Lichtenstein’s group. The mean time to return to basic physical activity in the Desarda’s technique was 12.6 days while it was 13.3 days in the Lichtenstein’s group. There were no recurrences in either group. Chronic inguinal pain (>1month) was more frequent in Lichtenstein’s group.Conclusions: There is no significant difference in duration of surgery, intra operative complication rate, post-operative pain, complications and recurrence, between Desarda’s technique and Lichtenstein’s technique. However chronic inguinal pain is less in Desarda’s technique. Desarda’s repair must be considered in young patients (<30 years). Its long-term efficacy needs to be studied with larger, prospective double-blind randomized trials, with longer follow-up.

scholarly journals Pediatric Herniotomy: A 2-year Follow-up Study at Nepal Medical College and Teaching Hospital

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-59
Author(s):  
Giridhar Bahadur Nhuchhe Pradhan ◽  
Sunil Shrestha ◽  
A Chalise ◽  
S Shrestha
Keyword(s):  
Inguinal Hernia ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Teaching Hospital ◽  
Total Duration ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Common Procedure ◽  
Medical College ◽  
Follow Up Study ◽  
Duration Of Surgery

Repair of inguinal hernia is one of the most commonly performed pediatric surgical procedures. The standard of treatment has been open herniotomy (OH). Recent trends have shown promising results with use of laparoscopy (LH) for the same. The aim of this study was to compare laparoscopic herniotomy with the standard of care at the time of the study, which has become an increasingly common procedure at our center. This was a prospective follow-up study conducted at the Department of Surgery at Nepal Medical College and Teaching Hospital. A total of sixty-four patients who underwent herniotomy were included in the study and followed up for a total duration of two years post-operatively. Immediate post-op pain was assessed with the use of visual analogue scales. Complications, recurrence, and metachronous herniation were noted in the follow up visits. Use of laparoscopy resulted in a longer operative time (36.68 min vs 22.5 min for OH, P <0.001). Pain scores were similar at immediate post-op period (LH 4.18 vs OH 3.93) but decreased significantly for LH compared to OH at 6 hours (3.68 vs 4.31, P = 0.018), 12 hours (2.71 vs 3.62, P <0.001), and 24 hours (2 vs 3.03, P <0.001). Difference in the mean hospital stay was statistically significant (LH 2.02 days vs OH 2.34 days, P <0.001). No recurrences occurred during the follow up period of the study. No patients developed contralateral metachronous hernia during the follow-up period. The cost of OH compared to LH was significantly less. LH is a safer and better alternative to OH for management of pediatric inguinal hernia when comparing post-op pain and hospital stay. However, duration of surgery and cost for the procedure favor OH at present in our setup.

scholarly journals A COMPARATIVE STUDY ON OUTCOMES OF OPEN & LAPAROSCOPIC REPAIR IN INGUINAL HERNIA IN A TERTIARY CARE CENTRE

2020 ◽  
pp. 23-25
Author(s):  
Konkena Janardhana Rao ◽  
K. Meghana ◽  
N. Prahalada Reddy ◽  
J. Ramanaiah ◽  
Mamatha. V ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Inguinal Hernia ◽  
Hernia Repair ◽  
Comparative Study ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Laparoscopic Hernia Repair ◽  
Female Ratio ◽  
Duration Of Surgery ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Operative Recovery ◽  
Lichtenstein Operation

Background: Over the last decade, the field of hernia surgery got a new transformation, with exponential growth in mesh technology. Laparoscopic hernia repair has remained a contentious issue since its inception. Though a variety of procedures performed; none can be termed as an ideal procedure as each one is accompanied by varied early and late complications. The most scientific way to conclude the superiority of one method over others is evidence-based medicine. Hence, we have conducted a study in our institute, to compare Lichtenstein tension-free open hernioplasty with Transabdominal pre-peritoneal repair (TAPP) comparing the intraoperative and early postoperative complications. Methods: Our study was a single-centre, prospective comparative study conducted on sixty-one patients, over a period of 2 years from August 2018 to August 2020. All the cases included in the study were uncomplicated inguinal hernias. A detailed history of the symptoms, thorough clinical examination and investigations were done, which were analysed. Results: Most of the patients presented in the 5th decade. Male to female ratio of incidence of inguinal hernia was 11.2:1. Majority of the patients presented with unilateral hernia with right inguinal hernia being the most frequent presentation. The mean duration of surgery for TAPP is more when compared to Lichtenstein operation. The mean duration of hospital stay for open hernioplasty is more when compared to the laparoscopic hernia repair. TAPP is associated with lesser complications when compared to Lichtenstein's hernioplasty. Seroma, hematoma, and wound infection were the common complications noted. Conclusion: TAPP repair is a better procedure when compared to Lichtenstein operation in terms of hospital stay, post- operative recovery, intra-operative and post-operative complications.

scholarly journals LAPAROSCOPIC TRANS-ABDOMINAL PREPERITONEAL VERSUS LICHTENSTEIN REPAIR OF INGUINAL HERNIA: A COMPARATIVE STUDY.

2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (07) ◽  
pp. 1151-1155
Author(s):  
Munawar Jamil ◽  
Khurram Niaz ◽  
Fatima Tahir ◽  
Humaira Sobia
Keyword(s):  
Inguinal Hernia ◽  
Postoperative Pain ◽  
Hernia Repair ◽  
Return To Work ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Laparoscopic Group ◽  
Lichtenstein Repair ◽  
Acute Postoperative Pain ◽  
Stay Time

Objectives: To compare Laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP)  to open Lichtenstein inguinal hernia repair for operation time, acute postoperative pain, complications, hospital stay, time to return to work to find out which has better outcome. Study Design: A prospective randomised controlled trial. Setting: QAMC/BVH Bahawalpur; Pakistan. Period: July 2017 to June 2018. Methodology: It included 50 patients, 32 in Lichtenstein group and 18 in TAPP group above the age of 18 years. Operation time, acute postoperative pain, complications, hospital stay, time to return to work were compared in two groups. Data analysis was done on SPSS 23 version. Results: Mean age of patients were 45±9.79 and 44.95±9.82 in Lichtenstein and laparoscopic group, 96% were male. Operation time was 37.96±13.66 vs. 48.77±9.99 (Min), hospital stay 2.28±0.79 vs.1.55±0.63 (Days), time to return to work 13.20±4.75 vs.10.47±3.59 (Days) in Lichtenstein and laparoscopic group respectively. Pain score was 6.1±1.9 vs. 5.2±0.94 in Lichtenstein and laparoscopic group. In immediate complications haematoma 6.25% vs. 0%, seroma 3.12% vs. 11.11%, wound infection 9.37% vs.5.55%, visceral injury 0% vs. 5.5% in Lichtenstein to laparoscopic group respectively. In long term complications chronic pain 28.12% vs.11.11%, recurrence 3.12% vs.0%, port site hernia 0% vs. 5.55%, numbness 9.37% vs. 0% in Lichtenstein and Laparoscopic group respectively. Mortality was nil in both groups. Conclusion: Although there is insignificant difference in complication rate, Laparoscopic hernia repair is better than Lichtenstein repair in terms of less postoperative pain, less hospital stay and early return to work.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document