Background: The present study was conducted for assessing and comparing the efficacy of Desarda vs Lichtenstein technique for thetreatment of primary inguinal hernia.Materials & Methods: 100 patients scheduled to undergo treatment for inguinal hernia were enrolled. Complete demographic andclinical details of all the patients was obtained. All the patients were randomized into two study groups: Group A (50 patients)-undergoing treatment by Desarda technique, and Group B (50 patients)- undergoing treatment by Lichtenstein technique. Forperforming Lichtenstein tension-free mesh repair, a polypropylene mesh was trimmed to fit the inguinal floor. Chronic pain wasassessed on a VAS score of 0 to 10 with 7 to 10 indicating strong pain while 3 to 6 indicating moderate pain. All the results weresubjected to statistical analysis using SPSS software.Results: Group A and group B subjects took 15.3 days and 14.2 days respectively for returning to basic activity. Group A and groupB subjects took 5.1 days and 8.3 days respectively for returning to home activity (p- value < 0.05). Mean hospital stay was 3.2 daysand 2.9 days among subjects of group A and group B respectively. Foreign body sensation was felt in one patient each of both thestudy groups. Incidence of seroma formation was higher among the patients of group B in comparison to patients of group A. Meanoperative time was significantly lower among patients of group A.Conclusion: Outcome is better for Desarda technique in comparison to Lichtenstein technique for the treatment of primary inguinalhernia.
Aim: The aim of this study to evaluate the outcome of varicose vein surgery with and without venous stripping.Material and methods: This research covered 100 varicose vein operations across all surgical units. This research included all varicose vein patients between the ages of 18 and 70 who also had incompetent perforators and the saphenofemoral valve. The research excluded individuals with age extremes between 18 to 70, deep vein thrombosis, concomitant short saphenous vein varicosity, venous ulcer or other skin abnormalities, and recurring varicosity.Results: The left leg was more commonly involved than the right side. The left limb was involved in 64% and the right limb was involved in 36% of patients in group 1 and 70% and 30% in group 2. 30% of patients who had venous stripping experienced hematoma development in the thigh, compared to 6% of patients who received the Trendelenburg operation alone without venous stripping. 18% of patients had haemorrhage. Due to the tissue stress that occurs during venous stripping, there is an increased risk of hematoma development in the thigh in individuals who undergo stripping. The ineffective perforators in the legs of both groups were accessed by making a transverse incision at the preoperatively indicated spot under Doppler guidance. In the days after the operation, these wounds were checked. In each group, 6% of patients had slower wound healing. On the first post-operative day, when patients were urged to walk, 70% of those who had had stripping and 90% of those who had undergone ligation alone were able to do so comfortably. It was discovered that there was increased discomfort, tissue stress, hematoma development, and bruising in the case of venous stripping.Conclusion: There is no noticeable difference between the two processes with regards to wound healing, hospital stay, or pain treatment. It would seem that the Trendelen burg technique with incompetent perforator’s ligation without venous stripping is preferable to the Trendelenburg method with incompetent perforator’s ligation with venous stripping, based on the observed characteristics.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.