





































Clinical Medicine Insights
Received 15 Apr 2021 | Revised 30 Apr 2021 | Accepted 15 June 2021 | Published Online 30 June 2021

DOI: https://doi.org/xx.xxx/xxx.xx 
CMI 2 (2), 104−109 (2021) ISSN (O) 2694-4626 IF:1.6

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Desarda repair no Mesh and Lichtenstein repair for inguinal hernia (A study
of 2793 patients)

Dr. Pedro Rolando Lòpez Rodrìguez 1∗
 

 

Dr. Eduardo Garcia Castillo 2
 

 

Dra. Olga
Caridad Leòn Gonzàlez 3

 

 

Dr. Jorge Agustin Satorre Rocha 4
 

 

Dr. Luis Marrero
Quiala 5

 

 

Dra. Lais Angèlica Ceruto Ortiz 6
 

 

1Specialist of I Degree and II
Degree in general surgery,
Axiliary Professor, Consulting
Professor and Auxiliary
Researcher.

2Specialist of I Degree in general
surgery . Assistant Professor.

3Specialist of I Degree in general
surgery ,Auxiliary Professor and
Auxiliary Researcher.

4Specialist of I Degree in general
surgery and Auxiliary Professor

5Specialist of I Degree in general
surgery and Assistent Professor.

6Third year resident in general
surgery

Abstract
Introduction: The objective of this study is to compare the outcomes of 
Desarda repair no mesh and Lichtenstein repair for inguinal hernia. Patients 
and Methods: This is a prospective randomized controlled trial study of 
2793 patients having 2936 hernias operated from January 2002 to De-
cember 2020.1434 patients were operated using Lichtenstein repair and 1359 
using Desarda repair. The variables like age, sex, location, type of hernia, 
tolerance to local anesthesia, duration of surgery, pain on the first, third 
and fifth day, hospital stay, complications, re-explorations, morbidity and 
time to return to normal activities were analyzed. Follow up period was from 
1-10 years (median 6.5 years). Results: There were no significant 
differences regarding age, sex, location, type of hernia, and pain in both the 
groups. The operation time was 53 minutes in Desarda group and 43 
minutes in the Lichtenstein group that is significant (p<0.05).The recurrence 
was 0.4 % in Desarda group and 0.4 % in Lichtenstein group. But, there 
were 14 cases of infection to the polypropylene mesh in the Lichtenstein 
group, 7 of this required re-exploration. The morbidity was also 
significantly more in Lichtenstein group (5,1 %) as compared to Desarda 
group (3.1 %). The mean time to return to work
in the Desarda group was 8.26 days while a mean of 12.58 days was in the 
Lichtenstein group. The mean hospital stay was 29 hrs. In Desarda group 
while it was 49 hours in the Lichtenstein group in those patients who were 
hospitalized.
Conclusions: Desarda repair scores significantly over the  Lichtenstein repair 
in all respects including re-explorations and morbidity. Desarda repair is a 
better choice as compared with Lichtenstein repair.
Keywords: Lichtenstein repair, Desarda repair, Inguinal hernia, Ran-
domized trial.

Copyright : © 2021 The Authors. Published by Medical Editor and 
Educational Research Publishers Ltd. This is an open access article 
under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

CMI 2 (2), 104−109 MEERP LTD 104

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5646-1699
https://orcid.org/0000.0002-7560-3581
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9437-3091
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7976-8869
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4705-4714
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4650-9040
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
https://medicineinsights.info/index.php/cmi/index


1 INTRODUCTION

The surgeons use different techniques in Cuba
for inguinal hernia repair like Bassini or
Shouldice and its modifications or different

types ofmesh repairs. The standardmesh is not avail-
able at many places and it is expensive also. Hernia
treatment has become a health problem because of
its social, economic and labor implications due to its
high incidence in our population (1). Until recently,
the only parameters to be evaluated were recurrence,
complication rates etc. Today, other parameters like
cost, postsurgerywellbeing and quality of life have
gained importance. The demand of general surgeons
is to identify operations that are simple to perform
without the need for complicated dissection and with
low complication and recurrence rates. Avoidance of
use of foreign material where possible is a basic sur-
gical principal.The authors read about the Desarda
repair which seems be simple in concept, avoids
the use of mesh and gives the desired results. This
repair is based on the concept of providing a strong
and physiologically dynamic posterior wall to the
inguinal canal. An undetached strip of the aponeu-
rosis of the external oblique muscle replaces the
absent aponeurotic element in the posterior wall and
the weakened conjoint muscle receives additional
strength from the external oblique muscle to keep
it physiologically dynamic (2).There are still many
controversies to answer. Which is the best technique
for repair? (3) Is hernioplasty better than herniorrha-
phy? Which is the best technique for hernioplasty
or herniorrhaphy?Does laparoscopic surgery have a
better cost-efficiency than open surgery? Is mesh
necessary in all inguinal hernia repairs?The objective
of this study is to re-evaluate the Lichtenstein mesh
repair and compare it with the novel and “No mesh,
physiological repair” described by Desarda.
Methods A prospective randomized controlled trial
was carried out in 2793 patients having 2936 hernias
operated from January 2002 to December 2020. 1434
patients having 1536 hernias were in the Lichtenstein
group and 1359 patients having 1406 hernias in the
Desarda group. All the patients from both sexes older
than 16 years with primary and recurrent inguinal
hernias were included. Patients operated on emer-
gency basis were excluded. The diagnosis of inguinal

hernia and its typewasmade by clinical examination.
Information was given to the patients as regards
the anesthetic procedures. The patient chose type of
anaesthesia after discussion with the surgeon. The
Randomization was performed using a consecutively
numbered, sealed envelope, which was opened, in
theatre and all patients having an even number were
operated by the Lichtenstein and uneven numbers
by the Desarda technique. The operating surgeon
completed a data sheet. The operating surgeon was at
consultant level for all operations. The evaluator was
also a surgeon of consultant level. All patients signed
a written informed consent. Approval of the local
ethical committee was given prior to the onset of the
study. Desarda repair was performed according to
the surgical technique described by Dr. Desarda and
mesh prosthesis repair was undertaken as described
in the textbooks. Prophylactic antibiotic was admin-
istered in the operating room before surgery (Cefazo-
line 1g.) in the Lichtenstein group only. All patients
were discharged as soon as their post-surgical recov-
ery allowed and all patients were instructed to do
daily, routine, non-strenuous work after discharge.A
non-steroidal anti-inflammatory (Diclofanac) anal-
gesic was prescribed for a period of 5 days and
continued if required. The consultants followed all
the patients at 8 days, 1 month, 6 months and then
yearly thereafter.A data sheet was completed by the
operating surgeon including type of hernia (Nyhus
classification) (4), anaesthesia, technical details and
intra operative complications. At discharge, further
data was added including any early post-operative
complications. Patients were asked to complete a
pain score on the first, third and fifth day after
surgery using a linear analogue scale (5, 6). At first
follow up, one month after surgery, further data

Supplementary information The online version of
this article (https://doi.org/xx.xxx/xxx.xx) contains
supplementary material, which is available to autho-
rized users.

Corresponding Author: Dr. Pedro Rolando Lòpez
Rodrìguez
Specialist of I Degree and II Degree in general surgery,
Axiliary Professor, Consulting Professor and Auxiliary
Researcher.
Email: pedro.rolando.lopez42@gmail.com

CMI 2 (2), 104−109 MEERP LTD 105

mailto:pedro.rolando.lopez42@gmail.com 


MEERP LTD
DR. PEDRO ROLANDO LÒPEZ RODRÌGUEZ ET AL.

were collected including time to return to normal
activities. The Student T test was used to compare
the independent measures and the Mann Whitney-
U test for nonparametric data. The Chi-squared test
and Fisher’s exact test were used to measure the
association between quality variables.

2 RESULTS

TABLE 1: AGE,SEX, LOCATION and TYPE of HERNIA.

Therewas no significant difference in relation to sex,
age, location and type of inguinal hernia in both the
groups. Table1

Local anesthesia was used in 612 patients in 
Licht-enstein group and 865 patients in the 
Desarda group. All those 1477 (53.0%) patients 
were operated on as outpatient basis without 
hospitalization. In the re-mainder short term of 
1207 patients who were treated as in-patients,the 
mean hospital stay was 28 hours in Desarda 
group and 48 hours in the Lichtenstein group 
(p<0.05) (Table 2).

All those 707(53.0%) patients were operated on 
as outpatient basis without hospitalization. In 
the re-mainder of 635 patients who were 
treated as in-patients,the mean hospital stay was 
27 hours in De-sarda group and 47 hours in the 
Lichtenstein group (p<0.05) (Table 2).

TABLE 3: o. 3 Dura on of Surgery and Pain.

Tolerance to local anesthesia was good 
during surgery in 52,0 % and 58,5 % respectively 
(NS). The mean duration of surgery was 40 
minutes for Licht-enstein and 51 minutes for 
Desarda group (p<0.05). Analysis of pain scores 
from day one to day 5 showed no significant 
difference (Table 3). There was no incidence of 
severe pain in either group.

MEERP LTD CMI 2 (2), 104−109 (2021) 106

TABLE 2: o. 2 Anesthesia and Hospital stay

TABLE 4: o. 4. Recurrence and re-explora on.



DESARDA REPAIR NO MESH AND LICHTENSTEIN REPAIR FOR INGUINAL HERNIA (A STUDY
OF 2793 PATIENTS)

The recurrence rate was 0.44% in the Desarda
group, and 0.41 % in the Lichtenstein group (NS).
Seven patients in the Lichtenstein group required re-
exploration and mesh removal for the sepsis. Thus
0.5 % of patients in the Lichtenstein group required
a further surgical intervention for either recurrence
or sepsis which was significantly higher than the
Desarda group (p<0.05) (Table 4).

TABLE 5: o. 5 Morbidity

. The seroma was the complication that most fre-
quently occurred with 27 patients in both groups
(1.0%). 74 (5,3 %) patients developed post-operative
complications in the Lichtenstein group and 43 (3.1
%) patients showed complications in the Desarda
group, The recurrence in both groups ( 0,4) (p<0.05)
(Table 5).
69,5 % patients returned to work within 8-15 days
in the Desarda group with a mean of 13,4days while

TABLE 6: o. 6 Return to Work.

56,0 % patients returned to work within 8-15 days
with a mean of 14.5 days in the Lichtenstein group ,
that is significant because in the Lichtenstein group
the morbidity is higher than in the Desarda group
(p<0.05) (Table 6). There was no case of chronic
groin pain lasting for more than 6 months in either
of the groups. Follow up was complete in over 97%
at 1 year, 92% at 2 years,89% at 3 years, 83% at
4 years,80% at 5 years, 80% at 6 years, 76% at 7
years, 73% at 8 years, 72% at 9 years and 70% at 10
years with no significant difference between the two
operation groups.
Lichtenstein Group : Mean: 1-7 days : 6,8 days , 8-15
days : 14,5 days , 16-30 days : 21,3 days.
Desarda Group : Mean :1-7 days : 5-7 days , 8-15
days : 13,4 days, 16-30 days : 18,4 days.

3 DISCUSSION

Mesh repair is now widely used in the developed
world and is often referred to as the gold standard
despite a relative paucity of clinical trials comparing
mesh with suture repair. The cost of surgery (7) and
the post-operative morbidity affecting the quality of
life are important considerations in the inguinal her-
nia surgery. There are no clear scientific evidences
to prove that the mesh prosthetic repair is superior
to the non-prosthetic repair in this respect (8). There
are advantages and disadvantages associated with
all types of open inguinal hernia repairs. Existing
non-prosthetic repair (Bassini/Shouldice) is blamed
causing tissue tension and mesh prosthetic repair
is blamed for known complications of a foreign
body. Dr. Desarda sutures an undetached strip of
the external oblique aponeurosis between the mus-

CMI 2 (2), 104−109 (2021) MEERP LTD 107



MEERP LTD
DR. PEDRO ROLANDO LÒPEZ RODRÌGUEZ ET AL.

cle arch and the inguinal ligament to give a strong
and physiologically dynamic posterior wall (9). This
results in a tension free repair without the use of
any foreign body. Being simple to perform it elim-
inates disadvantage of technical difficulty seen with
Shouldice repair. Different studies have tried to give
an answer as to which of the existing operation is
best for inguinal hernia repair (10, 11). The EU
Hernia Trialist collaboration (12) made a system-
atic revision of the randomized prospective studies
and the analysis of the results of these different
studies. It showed that the duration of surgery was
less in hernioplasty in six studies, longer in three
and equal in the remaining six. In our group, there
was a significant but slight increase in operating
time with the Desarda operation. Postoperative pain
after mesh prosthetic repair may be less than after
Shouldice repair because of reduced tension (12, 13).
Our results have shown that there are no significant
differences between the two groups for pain on the
first to fifth day after surgery. We found no signif-
icant difference in analgesic requirements between
the techniques. Overall morbidity was 5.0%, which
is similar to the rates described in other studies (7-
12%) (14). The morbidity rate was higher after the
Lichtenstein repair (53 cases, 7.5% versus 26, 3.4%
in the Desarda group). There were 8 mesh infec-
tions after surgery in the Lichtenstein group. Two
cases required partial excision of the mesh and in
one case, it was associated with recurrence. Desarda
technique has lower morbidity as compared to mesh
hernioplasty. We believe that the four cases of re-
currences seen in Desarda group were due to failure
of proper lateralization of the cord and insufficient
narrowing of the internal ring as advised by Desarda.
This was evident at re-exploration in those cases
that needed only narrowing of the internal ring with
few more stitches. In patients admitted to hospital,
post-operative stay and the period required to return
to normal work after surgery was also significantly
in favour of the Desarda group. 62 patients from
Lichtenstein group required more than 3 days in the
hospital due to local wound complications or for
some other reasons compared to only 5 patients from
theDesarda group, a significant difference.We noted
a marked difference in the type of anaesthetic used
39% v 72% for local, 54% v 25% for spinal and 7% v

2% for general anaesthetic in Lichtenstein v Desarda
group. This could affect the statistics of hospital
stay of the patients who required hospitalization.
The external oblique muscle technique satisfies all
criteria of modern hernia surgery. It is simple and
easy to do. It does not require risky or complicated
dissection. There is minimal tension in the suture
line. It does not require any foreign material and
it does not use weak muscle or fascia transversalis
for repair. It does not use mesh prosthesis so it is
more economical. No foreign body is required in the
Desarda repair thus avoiding morbidity associated
with foreign bodies including rejection, infection and
chronic groin pain. Jacek Szopinski et al. (15) stated
in their randomized controlled trial (RCT) that the
“Desarda technique has the potential to enlarge the
number of tissue based methods available to treat
groin hernias. Themost evident indications for use of
the Desarda technique include use in young patients,
in contaminated surgical fifields, in the presence
of fifinancial constraints, or if a patient disagrees
with the use of mesh.”Situma et al. (16) compared
Desarda technique with the modified Bassini tech-
nique in their RCT and concluded that there is no
difference in short-term outcome between Desarda
and modified Bassini inguinal hernia repair as re-
gards resumption of normal gait and patterns of pain.
Manyilirah (17) concluded in their RCT that the
efficacy of the Desarda technique in respect of the
early clinical outcomes of hernia repair is similar to
that of Lichtenstein method. However the operator
in this study showed that the Desarda repair takes
a significantly shorter operative time (18–20). The
authors therefore conclude that theDesarda repair for
inguinal hernia gives the same or better results when
compared with the Lichtenstein Mesh repair with
shorter hospital stay, more rapid recovery and avoid-
ance of specific mesh related complications whilst
also reducing the cost of surgery. It is technically
simpler than the Shouldice repair and we recommend
that surgeons become acquainted with this technique
[21,22,23,34] (21–23).
Conclusion .Desarda repair scores significantly over
the Lichtenstein repair in all respects including re-
explorations andmorbidity. Desarda repair is a better
choice as compared with Lichtenstein repair.

MEERP LTD CMI 2 (2), 104−109 (2021) 108



DESARDA REPAIR NO MESH AND LICHTENSTEIN REPAIR FOR INGUINAL HERNIA (A STUDY
OF 2793 PATIENTS)
4 CONFLICTS OF INTERESTTHE AUTHORS
DO NOT DECLARE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.

REFERENCES

1. Rutkow MI. Epidemiologic, economic and
sociologic aspects of hernia surgery in the
United States in the 1900s. Surg North Am.
1998;78(6):941–951.

2. Poojary HS, Prasanna PG, Mulki S. Desarda
technique versus Lichtenstein repair for inguinal
hernia in tertiary care centre: a prospec-
tive study. International Surgery Journal.
2020;7(3):680–680. Available from: https://dx.
doi.org/10.18203/2349-2902.isj20200543. doi:
10.18203/2349-2902.isj20200543.

3. Porrero JL, Bonachía O, López-Buenadicha
A, Sanjuanbenito A, Sánchez-Cabezudo C.
Reparación de la hernia inguinal primaria: Licht-
enstein frente a Shouldice. Estudio prospec-
tivo y aleatorizado sobre el dolor y los costes
hospitalarios. Cirugía Española. 2005;77(2):75–
78. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
s0009-739x(05)70811-3. doi:10.1016/s0009-73
9x(05)70811-3.

4. Aragon FJ; 2001.

5. Price DD, Bush FM, Long S, Harkins SW. A
comparison of pain measurement characteris-
tics of mechanical visual analogue and simple
numerical rating scales. Pain. 1994;56(2):217–
226. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
0304-3959(94)90097-3. doi:10.1016/0304-395
9(94)90097-3.

6. Porrerojl, Sanchez-Cabezudo C, Lee P. Study of
unilateral post-herniorrhaphy analgesia with lo-
cal anaesthetic and monitored anaesthesia care.
Ambulatory Surg. 1998;6:211–214.

7. Hospitalarios C; 2005.

8. Porrero JL. El cambio de la cirugía de la hernia
en la última década. Fundamentos de la hernio-
plastia sin tensión Madrid: Fundación Jiménez
Díaz. 1999;p. 9–11.

9. Desarda MP. Surgical physiology of inguinal
hernia repair - a study of 200 cases. BMC
Surgery. 2003;3(1):1–9. Available from: https:
//dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2482-3-2. doi:10.11
86/1471-2482-3-2.

10. SimonsMP, Kleijnen J, van Geldere D, Hoitsma
HFW, Obertop H. Role of the Should ice tech-
nique in inguinal hernia repair: A systematic
review of controlled trials and a meta-analysis.
British Journal of Surgery. 2005;83(6):734–738.
Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bjs.
1800830606. doi:10.1002/bjs.1800830606.

11. McGillicuddy JE. Prospective Randomized
Comparison of the Shouldice and Lichtenstein
Hernia Repair Procedures. Archives of Surgery.
1998;133(9):974–974. Available from: https:
//dx.doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.133.9.974. doi:1
0.1001/archsurg.133.9.974.

12. Mesh compared with non-mesh methods of
open groin hernia repair: systematic review
of randomized controlled trials. Br J Surg.
2000;87(7):854–859.

13. Kingsnorth AN, Porter CS, Bennett DH, Walker
AJ, HylandME, Sodergren S. Lichtenstein patch
or Perfix plug-and-patch in inguinal hernia:
A prospective double-blind randomized con-
trolled trial of short-term outcome. Surgery.
2000;127(3):276–283. Available from: https://
dx.doi.org/10.1067/msy.2000.104124. doi:10.1
067/msy.2000.104124.

14. Gilbert AI, Felton IL. Infection on inguinal her-
nia repair considering biomaterials and antibi-
otics. Surg Gynecol. 1993;117(2):126–130.

15. Szopinski J, Dabrowiecki S, Pierscinski S, Jack-
owski M, Jaworski M, Szuflet Z. Desarda Ver-
sus Lichtenstein Technique for Primary Inguinal
Hernia Treatment: 3-Year Results of a Random-
ized Clinical Trial. World Journal of Surgery.
2012;36(5):984–992. Available from: https://dx.
doi.org/10.1007/s00268-012-1508-1. doi:10.10
07/s00268-012-1508-1.

CMI 2 (2), 104−109 (2021) MEERP LTD 109

https://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2349-2902.isj20200543
https://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2349-2902.isj20200543
http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2349-2902.isj20200543
http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2349-2902.isj20200543
https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0009-739x(05)70811-3
https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0009-739x(05)70811-3
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0009-739x(05)70811-3
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0009-739x(05)70811-3
https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0304-3959(94)90097-3
https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0304-3959(94)90097-3
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0304-3959(94)90097-3
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0304-3959(94)90097-3
https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2482-3-2
https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2482-3-2
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2482-3-2
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2482-3-2
https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bjs.1800830606
https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bjs.1800830606
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bjs.1800830606
https://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.133.9.974
https://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.133.9.974
http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.133.9.974
http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.133.9.974
https://dx.doi.org/10.1067/msy.2000.104124
https://dx.doi.org/10.1067/msy.2000.104124
http://dx.doi.org/10.1067/msy.2000.104124
http://dx.doi.org/10.1067/msy.2000.104124
https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00268-012-1508-1
https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00268-012-1508-1
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00268-012-1508-1
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00268-012-1508-1


MEERP LTD
DR. PEDRO ROLANDO LÒPEZ RODRÌGUEZ ET AL.

16. Situma S, Kaggwa, Masiira, Mutumba S. Com-
parison of Desarda versus Modified Bassini in-
guinal Hernia Repair: A Randomized controlled
trial. East Cent Afr J surg. 2009;14(2):70–76.

17. Manyilirah W, Kijjambu S, Upoki A, Kiryab-
wire J. Comparison of non-mesh (Desarda)
and mesh (Lichtenstein) methods for inguinal
hernia repair among black African patients:
a short-term double-blind RCT. Hernia.
2012;16(2):133–144. Available from: https:
//dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10029-011-0883-0. doi:
10.1007/s10029-011-0883-0.

18. Yousset T, El-Alfy K, Farid M. Randomized
Clinical trial of primary inguinal hernia. Int J
Surg. 2015;20:28–34.

19. Dieng M, Cisse M, Seek M, Diallo FK, Tourè
AD. Cure des hernies inguinales simples de
L’ adulte pastie avec L’ aponèurose du grand
oblique: Technique de Desarda. e-mèmoires
de L’Acadèmie Nationale de. Chirurgie.
2012;11(2):69–074.

20. Pachauri A, Kumar A. Outcome of Desarda
repair in incarcerated inguinal hernia repair:
experience in university hospital. International
Surgery Journal. 2019;6(6):2084–2084. Avail-
able from: https://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2349-

2902.isj20192371. doi:10.18203/2349-2902.is
j20192371.

21. Jianxin Z, Dong JW, Zhiyong Z. Desarda in-
guinal hernia repair and synthetic patch (open
VS TEP) hernia repair comparative study. J Chi-
nese Her and abdominal Surg. 2013;7(6):559–
563.

22. Roduìguez PRL, Herrera P, G P, Gonzàlez L, C
O, Alonso C, et al. A Randomized Trial Com-
paring Lichtenstein repair and no mesh Desarda
repair for inguinal Hernia: A Study of 1382
patients. East Cent Afr J Surg. 2013;.

23. Fardhus MD, Sharfuzzaman AM, Dewan N,
Hossain A, Sami-Al-Hassam A, Rabj Z. Licht-
enstein Versus Desarda’s Technique of Hernia
repair. J of Surg bScien. 2018;22(2):99–103.

How to cite this article: D.P.R.L.R., D.E.G.C., 
D.O.C.L.G., D.J.A.S.R., D.L.M.Q., D.L.A.C.O. 
Desarda repair no Mesh and Lichtenstein repair 
for inguinal hernia (A study of 2793 patients) . 
Clinical Medicine Insights. 2021;104−109. 
https:/ /doi.org/xx.xxx/xxx.xx

MEERP LTD CMI 2 (2), 104−109 (2021) 109

https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10029-011-0883-0
https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10029-011-0883-0
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10029-011-0883-0
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10029-011-0883-0
https://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2349-2902.isj20192371
https://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2349-2902.isj20192371
http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2349-2902.isj20192371
http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2349-2902.isj20192371

	Introduction
	Results
	Discussion
	Conflicts of interestThe authors do not declare conflicts of interest.



