Cutting through the p-value: Assessing Clinical Relevance in Inguinal Hernia Repair Surgical Literature

Study Background and Disease Burden

Inguinal hernia repair (IHR) remains one of the most performed general surgical procedures worldwide, with significant implications for patient quality of life and healthcare resources. The decision between open, laparoscopic, or robotic approaches is influenced by various factors including surgeon expertise, patient characteristics, and perceived benefits concerning recurrence rates, postoperative pain, and wound morbidity. Contemporary surgical literature heavily relies on evidence-based medicine principles; however, a critical challenge arises when interpreting results based solely on statistical significance (p-value < 0.05) without an accompanying definition of clinical relevance. This gap can lead to misleading conclusions about superiority among techniques, potentially affecting clinical practice and patient outcomes. Given this backdrop, evaluating the reporting of clinical relevance cutoffs in comparative studies of IHR is paramount to improve the translation of research findings into meaningful clinical decisions.

Study Design