ReviewCureus2025
Postoperative Outcomes of the Desarda Technique Versus Lichtenstein Mesh Repair for Inguinal Hernias: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Inguinal hernias represent a prevalent surgical condition worldwide and constitute a significant proportion of elective general surgical procedures. While the Lichtenstein mesh repair has become the standard technique due to its tension-free approach, it is associated with several mesh-related complications, including chronic postoperative pain, seroma, scrotal edema, and foreign body sensation. To overcome these limitations, the Desarda technique was developed as a tissue-based, mesh-free alternative that reinforces the posterior wall of the inguinal canal using a strip of the external oblique aponeurosis. This systematic review compares postoperative complications between the Lichtenstein mesh repair and Desarda techniques to inform best practices in inguinal hernia repair. This systematic review was conducted according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A comprehensive search was performed across PubMed, Cochrane Library, Excerpta Medica database (EMBASE), Emcare, Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), and Ovid, without language or date restrictions. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing Desarda and Lichtenstein mesh repair for primary inguinal hernia in adults were included. Data on postoperative complications were independently extracted by two reviewers. Risk of bias was assessed using the Risk of Bias 2 (ROB 2) tool (The Cochrane Collaboration, London, United Kingdom). Statistical analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 (The Cochrane Collaboration, 2020), with risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) calculated for binary outcomes. Heterogeneity was assessed using the chi-square and I² statistics. A total of 23 RCTs were included, comprising 2,425 patients, 1,201 of whom underwent the Desarda repair and 1,233 who underwent Lichtenstein mesh repair. The Desarda technique was associated with significantly lower rates of scrotal edema (RR = 0.52, 95% CI: 0.34-0.78, p = 0.002), seroma formation (RR = 0.68, 95% CI: 0.47-0.99, p = 0.04), foreign body sensation (RR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.42-0.88, p = 0.009), and chronic postoperative pain (RR = 0.26, 95% CI: 0.15-0.45, p < 0.00001). While the Desarda group also showed lower rates of recurrence, wound infection, wound hematoma, and loss of sensation, these differences were not statistically significant and should be interpreted with caution. The findings suggest that the Desarda technique may be preferable to the Lichtenstein mesh repair for primary inguinal hernia, as it is associated with significantly lower rates of chronic postoperative pain, seroma, scrotal edema, and foreign body sensation. Although other complications, such as loss of sensation, recurrence, wound infection, and hematoma, were also less frequent with the Desarda technique, these differences were not statistically significant. Overall, the outcomes were largely comparable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.