Background There is a paucity of data comparing open, robotic, and laparoscopic approaches on unilateral, non-recurrent inguinal hernias. Our study presents a large, retrospective triple-arm outcome analysis between robotic, laparoscopic, and open unilateral, non-recurrent inguinal hernia repairs at a single institution. Methods 706 patients who underwent elective, non-recurrent inguinal hernia repair performed by 8 general surgeons at a single institution from 2016 to 2019 were reviewed retrospectively. Patient baseline characteristics, operative times, resident involvement, and postoperative outcomes were analyzed for all repair types. A cost analysis of the different procedures was performed. Results There were 305 laparoscopic repairs, 207 robotic repairs, and 194 open repairs. Open and laparoscopic repairs were performed on patients who were older (p =< .001) and with a higher Charlson Comorbidity Index (p =< .001). Patient BMI was higher in minimally invasive repair than open repair (P = .021). There were no significant differences in complication rates on pairwise analysis. Robotic and open repairs had significantly longer operative times than laparoscopic repairs (P < .001). There was less resident involvement in robotic repair than with the other approaches (P < .001). Resident involvement was associated with shorter OR times (P = .001) and no significant difference in postoperative complications. There was a trend over the study period toward faster operative times and more robotic repair. Robotic repair is the most expensive repair, followed by laparoscopic and open repairs. Conclusion All 3 repair techniques can be performed without significant differences in outcomes. The technique utilized should be based on surgeon preference and patient characteristics.

Introduction The Brain Injury Guidelines (BIG) direct surgeons to implement risk-stratified treatment plans for patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI). BIG categorize patients into one of three severity categories, from lowest to highest risk (BIG 1, BIG 2, and BIG 3). BIG empowers physicians to implement standardized treatment plans that limit unnecessary hospitalizations, repeat imaging, and neurosurgical consultation. These guidelines have been studied in Level I trauma centers, but their clinical application has never been studied in a Level III trauma center. In this pilot study, we sought to determine if the BIG can be implemented in a regional trauma center where patients with less severe brain injuries are locally evaluated and treated. Methods All TBI patients at a Level III trauma center were stratified using the BIG criteria, where BIG 1 and BIG 2 patients were managed locally and BIG 3 patients were transferred to a Level I trauma center. We conducted a retrospective review using the local trauma database and electronic medical records over a 1-year period when BIG were first protocolized. The primary endpoint included deaths, complications, readmissions, and length of stay. Results There were 6 (12.2%) BIG 1, 5 (10.2%) BIG 2, and 38 (77.6%) BIG 3 patients evaluated at the Level III trauma center. All BIG 1 and BIG 2 patients remained at the Level III trauma center, and 33 of the 38 BIG 3 patients were transferred. There were no complications, readmissions, or unexpected transfers within the BIG 1 or BIG 2 patient cohorts. Conclusion The BIG criteria can be successfully implemented in a Level III trauma center. A collaborative transfer agreement with a Level I trauma center reduces unnecessary transfers without negatively affecting patient care. The BIG criteria should be considered for well-developed regional trauma systems.