Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Background Mesh-based repair is widely used for uncomplicated inguinal hernia, but tissue-based repair remains relevant when avoidance of prosthetic material is desired. We evaluated outcomes of a modified Desarda–Halsted repair incorporating broad posterior-wall reinforcement, double-breasting of the external oblique aponeurosis, deep-ring stabilization, and subcutaneous exteriorization of the spermatic cord. Methods A clinical series of 550 consecutive adults with uncomplicated inguinal hernia who underwent the modified repair at a tertiary surgical centre was analysed. The repair used broad external-oblique aponeurotic reinforcement, fixation around the deep inguinal ring, double-breasting of the aponeurosis, and subcutaneous positioning of the spermatic cord. The primary outcome was hernia recurrence. Secondary outcomes included postoperative complications, chronic groin pain, cord-related morbidity, and functional recovery. Results All 550 procedures were completed using the planned tissue-based technique without conversion to mesh repair. During follow-up, 4 patients developed recurrent hernia, corresponding to a recurrence rate of 0.72%. Early complications included seroma in 34 patients (6.2%), superficial surgical-site infection in 22 (4.0%), haematoma in 20 (3.6%), and transient spermatic-cord oedema in 20 (3.6%). These complications were managed conservatively. No chronic groin pain, foreign-body sensation, or persistent cord morbidity was reported. Functional recovery was favourable in the reported cohort. Conclusion The modified Desarda–Halsted repair was associated with a low observed recurrence rate and limited postoperative morbidity in this single-centre clinical series. The technique may be a mesh-free option for selected patients with uncomplicated inguinal hernia. Comparative multicentre studies with standardized outcome assessment are required to determine its effectiveness relative to established repairs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ladukar et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: