SynthesisWorld journal of surgery2020
Non-mesh Desarda Technique Versus Standard Mesh-Based Lichtenstein Technique for Inguinal Hernia Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Synthesis in World journal of surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Is laparoscopy better? A Meta-analysis comparing laparoscopic and open inguinal hernia repair across 4,000 patients.BMC surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Review
- Groin hernia.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2025Review
- Article
- Quality of Life after Desarda Technique for Inguinal Hernia Repair-A Comparative Retrospective Multicenter Study of 120 Patients.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Review
- Article
- Is Desarda technique suitable to emergency inguinal hernia surgery? A systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2020Review
- The "Best" Inguinal Hernia Repair Technique.World journal of surgery · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aims of the present systematic review and meta-analysis were to compare non-mesh Desarda technique with standard mesh-based Lichtenstein technique for inguinal hernia repair.
methodsA systematic literature search for RCTs comparing between DT and LT was conducted using electronic databases and Google scholar service. Studies were evaluated for recurrence and post-operative complications. We pooled the data using fixed effects model and random effects model after assessing the heterogeneity among the included studies.
resultsA total number of 8 RCTs studies were included in this meta-analysis with total number of 3177 patients divided between Desarda group and Lichtenstein group as follows: 1551 patients and 1,626 patients, respectively. There was no difference in terms of recurrence between the Desarda repair and Lichtenstein repair groups [P = 0.44]. There was a lower rate of overall post-operative complications [P = 0.003], seroma [P = 0.0004] and surgical site infections (SSIs) [P = 0.04] in the Desarda group.
conclusionDT and LT were found to have comparable results in terms of recurrence rate, haematoma formation, testicular atrophy and time to return to normal daily activity/work. DT is superior to LT in terms of reducing post-operative mesh-attributed complications, such as SSI and Seroma formation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32440951What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.