A Comparative Study of Different Treatment Modalities of Inguinal Hernia

Inguinal Hernia

  • Tarun Kumar Naik Associate Professor, Department of General Surgery, Shri Shankaracharya Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhilai, Chhattisgarh, India
  • Manish Kumar Khare Associate Professor, Department of General Surgery, Shri Shankaracharya Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhilai, Chhattisgarh, India
Keywords: Hernia, Inguinal, Lichtenstein Method


Background: Hernia is mainly defined as a protrusion, bulge or projection of an organ or a part of an organ through the body wall that normally contains it. The present study compared different treatment modality of inguinal hernia. Subjects and Methods: 80 cases of lingual hernia of both genders were divided into 2 groups of 40 each. Group I patients underwent Lichtenstein’s hernioplasty and group II patients underwent preperitoneal meshplasty. Parameters such as time taken for surgery, early complications were recorded. Results: Group I had 22 males and 18 females and group II had 25 males and 15 females. The mean time of surgery in group I was 46.2 minutes and in group II was 55.2 minutes. The early complication was seroma 2 each in group I and 1 in group II, wound infection 3 cases in group I and 2 in group II, pain 2 in group I, mesh infection 3 in group I and 1 in group II and testicular atrophy 1 in group I. The difference was significant (P< 0.05). Conclusion: Inguinal hernias were effectively managed with both techniques.


Download data is not yet available.


Aasvang E, Kehlet H. Chronic postoperative pain: the case of inguinal herniorrhaphy. Br J Anaesth. 2005;95(1):69–76. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bja/aei019.

Lau H, Patil NG, Yuen WK. Day-case endoscopic totally extraperitoneal inguinal hernioplasty versus open Lichtenstein hernioplasty for unilateral primary inguinal hernia in males. Surg Endosc. 2006;20(1):76–81. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-005-0203-9.

Reid I, Devlin HB. Testicular atrophy as a consequence of inguinal hernia repair. Br J Surg. 2005;81(1):91–93. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.1800810132.

Ruhl CE, Everhart JE. Risk Factors for Inguinal Hernia among Adults in the US Population. Am J Epidemiol. 2007;165(10):1154–1161. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwm011.

Sakorafas GH, Halikias I, Nissotakis C, Kotsifopoulos N, Stavrou A, Antonopoulos C, et al. Open tension free repair of inguinal hernias; the Lichtenstein technique. BMC Surg. 2001;1:3. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2482-1-3.

Ibingira CB. Long term complications of inguinal hernia repairs. East Afr Med J. 1999;76(7):396–399.

Karthikesalingam A, Markar SR, Holt PJE, Praseedom RK. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing laparoscopic with open mesh repair of recurrent inguinal hernia. Br J Surg. 2009;97(1):4–11. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bjs.6902.

Henriksen NA, Yadete DH, Sorensen LT, Ågren MS, Jorgensen LN. Connective tissue alteration in abdominal wall hernia. Br J Surg. 2011;98(2):210–219. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bjs.7339.

Kulacoglu H. Current options in inguinal hernia repair in adult patients. Hippokratia. 2001;15(3):223–231.

Yadav HK. Prevalence of inguinal hernia in a known population: A Prospective study. J Adv Med Dent Scie Res. 2019;7(8):204–206.

Fenoglio ME, Bermas HR, Haun WE, Moore JT. Inguinal hernia repair: results using an open preperitoneal approach. Hernia. 2005;9(2):160–161. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10029-004-0313-7.

Tayshete VV, Rao KN, Sansuddi G, Tayshete SS. Assessment of efficacy of Sutureless mesh repair in patients with inguinal hernia. J Adv Med Dent Scie Res. 2020;8(10):80–82.