Comparison of Short-term outcomes between Desardas tissue repair and Lichtensteins meshplasty in Inguinal hernia surgery: A Double blinded Randomized control trial

Hernia has been continuing as one of the oldest and one of the most common common surgical pathology. The surgical intervention for hernia has taken leaps over the past few years. Starting with simple open procedures as Shouldice and bassini repair to, it has evolved over time to such complex laparoscopic and robotic surgeries[11]

 The comparison and contrast between Desarda’s tissue repair and Lichtenstein meshplasty for the repair of inguinal hernia has increasingly been discussed in medical literature to assess their effectiveness in both short-term and long-term outcomes. Desarda’s repair, described in the early 21st century, is a tension-free method that precludes the use of synthetic mesh by employing the external oblique aponeurosis to provide support to the abdominal wall. This technique has been recognized for its simplicity and the use of no foreign materials, thereby minimizing risks of complications such as chronic pain, infection, and rejection. Its shorter recovery time and lower incidences of post-operative pain have been noted in studies, and it is considered a promising alternative, especially in resource-limited environments.

The Lichtenstein meshplasty, on the other hand, is still the gold standard in hernia repair because of its established capacity to reduce recurrence rates. This method uses a polypropylene mesh to provide reinforcement to the compromised abdominal wall through a tension-free repair.[12]

 Though effective, it has been known to have complications like chronic pain related to the mesh, foreign body sensation, and, rarely, mesh migration. Randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses have yielded inconsistent findings when the two methods are compared, with some reporting similar success rates and others supporting one method over the other based on particular patient groups or surgical settings.