Randomized clinical trial of Desarda versus Lichtenstein repair for treatment of primary XXXX .

@entity1 @entity1109 @entity260 @entity158 @entity169 @entity282 @entity1118
BACKGROUND: The ideal operation to treat @entity169 is still far to define. We analyzed the outcomes of the Desarda tissue-based repair in comparison with the standard Lichtenstein procedure in treatment of primary @entity169 . METHODS: A total of 168 @entity1 were randomly allocated into two groups to undergo one of two repairs: Desarda (group I) or Lichtenstein (group II) (85 vs. 83, respectively). The primary outcome measures were recurrence of @entity1118 . Secondary outcome measures included operating time, @entity282 scores, time to return to normal gait and to work, @entity1109 in the groin, and @entity260 . RESULTS: During 2-year follow up, one recurrence was detected in each group (P  =  0.99). Chronic groin @entity158 was experienced by 5.6% and 4.2% of @entity1 from Desarda and Lichtenstein groups respectively (P  =  0.68). There was no significant statistical difference in mean postoperative VAS scores for @entity158 at the five time points between the two study groups. There was significantly shorter operating time and earlier return to normal gait in favor of Desarda repair. @entity1109 was not different between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Successful @entity169 treatment without mesh implantation can be achieved using Desarda repair, as it is effective as the standard Lichtenstein procedure. Shorter operating time, early return to normal gait and lower cost (no mesh) are potential benefits of Desarda repair. The suitability of Desarda repair for @entity1 found to have thin, weak or divided external oblique aponeurosis intraoperatively needs further evaluation.
