A Comparative Study of Hernioplasty With Suction Drain and Without Suction Drain in Inguinal Hernias at Tertiary Care Hospital

Authors

  • D. Ramesh

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.37506/ijphrd.v14i4.18539

Keywords:

Hernioplasty, Inguinal Hernias, Seroma, Lichtenstein

Abstract

Background: Inguinal hernia occurs in about 15% of adult population and inguinal hernia repair is one of the most
commonly performed surgical procedure. In the era of minimal invasive surgery, hernia repair has seen a paradigm shift
from open to laparoscopic technique.
Objectives: To assess the outcome of drain placement Vs no drain use, in patients undergoing open mesh repair of
inguinal hernias.
Methods: This is a prospective study comprising of 50 patients of inguinal hernia over a period of 23 months. The patients
were randomized into 2 groups – With and without the use of drains. The patients underwent open inguinal hernia mesh
repair by a standardized method. The outcome of seroma formation, hematoma formation, infection at surgical site, and
duration of hospital stay was recorded and analyzed.
Results: In the present study 16% of cases in drainage group and 20% in non-drainage group developed post operative
wound infection. P value is insignificant. The mean post operative hospital stay in drainage group was 9.7 days and in
non-drainage group was 6.7 days.
Conclusion: The early post operative complications like seroma, hematoma, wound infection rates are similar in both
drainage and non-drainage groups. So, it appears that suction drain usage can be restricted in Lichtenstein’s tension free
mesh repair in simple inguinal hernias unless hernia is complicated or there is extensive dissection

Author Biography

D. Ramesh

Associate professor, Department of General surgery, Osmania general hospital, Hyderabad

Downloads

Published

2022-10-10

How to Cite

D. Ramesh. (2022). A Comparative Study of Hernioplasty With Suction Drain and Without Suction Drain in Inguinal Hernias at Tertiary Care Hospital. Indian Journal of Public Health Research & Development, 13(4), 91–95. https://doi.org/10.37506/ijphrd.v14i4.18539