IMPORTANCE US health care spending has continued to increase and now accounts for 18% of the US economy, although little is known about how spending on each health condition varies by payer, and how these amounts have changed over time. OBJECTIVE To estimate US spending on health care according to 3 types of payers (public insurance [including Medicare, Medicaid, and other government programs], private insurance, or out-of-pocket payments) and by health condition, age group, sex, and type of care for 1996 through 2016. DESIGN AND SETTING Government budgets, insurance claims, facility records, household surveys, and official US records from 1996 through 2016 were collected to estimate spending for 154 health conditions. Spending growth rates (standardized by population size and age group) were calculated for each type of payer and health condition. EXPOSURES Ambulatory care, inpatient care, nursing care facility stay, emergency department care, dental care, and purchase of prescribed pharmaceuticals in a retail setting. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES National spending estimates stratified by health condition, age group, sex, type of care, and type of payer and modeled for each year from 1996 through 2016. RESULTS Total health care spending increased from an estimated $1.4 trillion in 1996 (13.3% of gross domestic product [GDP]; $5259 per person) to an estimated $3.1 trillion in 2016 (17.9% of GDP; $9655 per person); 85.2% of that spending was included in this study. In 2016, an estimated 48.0% (95% CI, 48.0%-48.0%) of health care spending was paid by private insurance, 42.6% (95% CI, 42.5%-42.6%) by public insurance, and 9.4% (95% CI, 9.4%-9.4%) by out-of-pocket payments. In 2016, among the 154 conditions, low back and neck pain had the highest amount of health care spending with an estimated $134.5 billion (95% CI, $122.4-$146.9 billion) in spending, of which 57.2% (95% CI, 52.2%-61.2%) was paid by private insurance, 33.7% (95% CI, 30.0%-38.4%) by public insurance, and 9.2% (95% CI, 8.3%-10.4%) by out-of-pocket payments. Other musculoskeletal disorders accounted for the second highest amount of health care spending

Objective: The aim of this study was to appraise the prevalence of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), esophagitis, and Barrett's esophagus (BE) after sleeve gastrectomy (SG) through a systematic review and meta-analysis. Background: The precise prevalence of new-onset or worsening GERD after SG is controversial. Subsequent esophagitis and BE can be a serious unintended sequalae. Their postoperative prevalence remains unclear. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed to identify studies evaluating postoperative outcomes in primary SG for morbid obesity. The primary outcome was prevalence of GERD, esophagitis, and BE after SG. Meta-analysis was performed to calculate combined prevalence. Results: A total of 46 studies totaling 10,718 patients were included. Meta-analysis found that the increase of postoperative GERD after sleeve (POGAS) was 19% and de novo reflux was 23%. The long-term prevalence of esophagitis was 28% and BE was 8%. Four percent of all patients required conversion to RYGB for severe reflux. Conclusions: The postoperative prevalence of GERD, esophagitis, and BE following SG is significant. Symptoms do not always correlate with the presence of pathology. As the surgical uptake of SG continues to increase, there is a need to ensure that surgical decision-making and the consent process for this procedure consider these long-term complications while also ensuring their postoperative surveillance through endoscopic and physiological approaches. The long-term outcomes of this commonly performed bariatric procedure should be considered alongside its weight loss and metabolic effects.

Background. Telementoring is a technique that has shown potential as a surgical training aid. Previous studies have suggested that telementoring is a safe training modality. This review aimed to review both the technological capabilities of reported telementoring systems as well as its potential benefits as a mentoring modality. Methods. A systematic review of the literature, up to July 2017, was carried out in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Study quality was assessed using the Oxford Levels of Evidence proforma. Data were extracted regarding technical capabilities, bandwidth, latency, and costs. Additionally, the primary aim and key results were extracted from each study and analyzed. Results. A total of 66 studies were identified for inclusion. In all, 48% of studies were conducted in general surgery; 22 (33%), 24 (36%), and 20 (30%) of studies reported telementoring that occurred within the same hospital, outside the hospital, and outside the country, respectively. Sixty-four (98%) of studies employed video and audio and 38 (58%) used telestration. Twelve separate studies directly compared telementoring against on-site mentoring. Seven (58%) showed no difference in outcomes between telementoring and on-site mentoring. No study found telementoring to result in poorer postoperative outcomes. Conclusions. The results of this review suggest that telementoring has a similar safety and efficacy profile as on-site mentoring. Future analysis to determine the potential benefits and pitfalls to surgical education through telementoring are required to determine the exact role it shall play in the future. Technological advances to improve remote connectivity would also aid the uptake of telementoring on a larger scale.