The cost-utility of catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and critical appraisal of economic evaluations

BACKGROUND

A health technology assessment (HTA) of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (CA-AF) was commissioned by the Belgian government and performed by the Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE). In this context, a systematic review of the economic literature was performed to assess the procedure's value for money.

METHODS

A systematic search for economic literature about the cost-effectiveness of CA-AF was performed by consulting various databases: CRD (Centre for Reviews and Dissemination) HTA and CDSR (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews) Technology Assessment, websites of HTA institutes, NHS EED (NHS Economic Evaluation Database), Medline (OVID), EMBASE and EconLit. No time or language restrictions were imposed and pre-defined selection criteria were used. The two-step selection procedure was performed by two persons. References of the selected studies were checked for additional relevant citations.

RESULTS

Out of 697 references, seven relevant studies were selected. Based on current evidence and economic considerations, the rationale to support catheter ablation as first-line treatment was lacking.The economic evaluations for second-line catheter ablation included several assumptions that make the results rather optimistic or subject to large uncertainty. First, overall AAD (antiarrhythmic drugs) use after ablation was higher in reality than assumed in the economic evaluations, which had its impact on costs and effects. Second, several models focused on the impact of ablation on preventing stroke. This was questionable because there was no direct hard evidence from RCTs to support this assumption. An indirect impact through stroke on mortality should also be regarded with caution. Furthermore, all models included an impact on quality of life (QoL)/utility and assumed a long-term impact. Unfortunately, none of the RCTs measured QoL with a generic utility instrument and information on the long-term impact on both mortality and QoL was lacking.

CONCLUSIONS

Catheter ablation is associated with high initial costs and may lead to life-threatening complications. Its cost-effectiveness depends on the belief one places on the impact on utility and/or preventing stroke, and the duration of these effects. Having no hard evidence for these important variables is rather troublesome. Although the technique is widely spread, the scientific evidence is insufficient for drawing conclusions about the intervention's cost-effectiveness.

[Lone atrial fibrillation--relevance for medical underwriting]

Atrial fibrillation is a common and multifaceted cardiac arrhythmia. At present rhythm and rate control can be considered equal regarding morbidity and mortality. Following scientific findings in the past years new therapeutic strategies and treatment options were developed. Therefore, a decision must be made not only between rate and rhythm control but also between the different antithrombotic drug regimes. Oral thrombin and factor X inhibitors herald a new era in antithrombotic therapy. The lack of necessity for routine INR monitoring certainly constitutes one of the greatest advantages of these novel agents in everyday clinical practice. Pulmonary vein isolation is a catheter-based treatment option for atrial fibrillation enabling the cure of arrhythmias for many patients--despite the high rate of recurrence. Many of these new therapeutical options lack long-term findings and previous successes are to be regarded with certain prudence.

Early experience with the cryoablation balloon procedure for the treatment of atrial fibrillation by an experienced radiofrequency catheter ablation center

BACKGROUND

Radiofrequency (RF) catheter ablation has provided an effective method for treating drug-refractory symptomatic atrial fibrillation. Recently, a cryoablation balloon approach has also received approval. The purpose of this study was to compare RF catheter ablation to cryoablation for the treatment of atrial fibrillation with respect to safety, immediate efficacy, and effects on procedural and fluoroscopy times. In addition, actual procedural costs were compared.

METHODS

This study was approved by the Winthrop University Hospital Institutional Review Board to retrospectively examine cryoablation with the Arctic Front Cardiac CryoAblation balloon catheter (Medtronic, Inc) and compare it to RF catheter ablation for the treatment of drug-refractory symptomatic atrial fibrillation. Patient and procedural characteristics as well as immediate success were compared. Immediate failure was defined as incomplete pulmonary vein isolation of all veins.

RESULTS

A total of 124 procedures (62 RFs and 62 cryoablations) were performed from December 2010 through July 2012. The cryoablation procedure took longer to perform than RF (171 ± 61 minutes vs 126 ± 49 minutes, respectively; P<.0001). There was no difference in fluoroscopy times between the two groups (29 ± 20 minutes for RF vs 32 ± 18 minutes for cryoablation; P=.39). The infusion of protamine following procedures was much more common in the cryoablation group (30 patients vs 2 patients in the RF group; P<.0001). The immediate success rate was 93.5% with RF ablation vs 96.7% with cryoablation (P=NS). There was not a significant difference in complications between the two approaches. The cost for each procedure was $24,391.88 ± 4826.77 for RF and $31,874.02 ± 8349.70 for cryoablation (P<.0001).

CONCLUSION

Cryoablation provides an additional and alternative approach to RF ablation for the treatment of symptomatic drug-refractory atrial fibrillation with comparable immediate success and complications. It is synergistic with RF and permits the ability to tackle the entire gamut of atrial fibrillation (ie, paroxysmal and persistent). This study showed no decrease in procedural or fluoroscopy times with our early experience. One significant limitation with cryoablation is the cost. Cryoablation resulted in over $7000 extra cost to the hospital per procedure. The clinical benefits achieved by this additional cost warrant further investigation.

Cost effectiveness of antiarrhythmic medications in patients suffering from atrial fibrillation

Atrial fibrillation (AF), a supraventricular tachycardia disorder, is the most common sustained cardiac arrhythmia affecting 1-2 % of the general population. Prevalence is highly related to age, with every fourth individual older than 40 years old developing AF during his lifetime. Due to an aging population, the prevalence of AF is estimated to at least double within the next 50 years. This article presents AF-related cost-of-illness studies and reviews 19 cost-effectiveness studies and six cost studies published roughly over the past decade, which have compared different antiarrhythmic medications for AF. A systematic literature search for studies published between June 2000 and December 2011 was conducted in PubMed using the combination of keywords ((atrial fibrillation OR atrial flutter) AND cost). Current cost-effectiveness analyses of dronedarone and the pill-in-the-pocket strategy are subject to substantial uncertainties with regard to clinical benefit. Comparing rate control with rhythm control, a cost-effectiveness advantage for rate control was shown in several but not all studies. Within antiarrhythmic drug treatments, magnesium added onto ibutilide was shown to be more cost effective than ibutilide alone. Comparing chemical and electrical cardioversion, the latter was recommended as more cost effective from the healthcare system perspective in all reviewed studies but one. Catheter ablation appeared more cost effective than antiarrhythmic drugs in the medium to long run after 3.2-63.9 years. Admissions to hospital, inpatient care and interventional procedures as well as mortality benefit are key drivers for the cost effectiveness of AF medications. No clear cost-effectiveness advantage emerged for one specific antiarrhythmic drug from the studies that compared antiarrhythmic agents. Rate control as well as catheter ablation appear more cost effective than rhythm control in the treatment of AF. Rate control treatment also seems more cost effective than electrical cardioversion in AF patients.

Cost and effectiveness of radiofrequency ablation versus limited surgical resection for stage I non-small-cell lung cancer in elderly patients: is less more?

PURPOSE

To retrospectively evaluate cost and mortality in 84 patients older than 65 years of age with stage IA or IB non-small-cell lung cancer treated with radiofrequency (RF) ablation or limited surgical resection (ie, wedge resection or segmentectomy) from the perspective of the payer, Medicare.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From August 2000 to November 2009, 56 patients were treated with RF ablation and 28 with surgery who met the inclusion criteria. Patient health histories and billing charges from initial treatment to the study endpoint were collected. Charges were converted to 2009 Medicare reimbursement fees and cumulated by month. Time-event data were analyzed by using the Kaplan-Meier method. Survival functions and median survival estimates were reported with standard errors. Patient cohorts' survival functions were compared based on the Wilcoxon weighted χ(2) statistic.

RESULTS

Group demographics were comparable with the exception of age, with patients treated with RF ablation an average of 4 years older (95% confidence interval, 0.85-6.76). The overall mortality rate was lower in patients treated with surgery than in those treated with RF ablation (χ(2) = 8.0225, P = .0046), with a median cost per month lived for RF ablation recipients of $620.74, versus $1,195.92 for those treated with surgery (P = .0002, Wilcoxon rank-sum test).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients treated with surgery showed a significant increase in survival; however, those treated with RF ablation were significantly older. For patients who are not surgical candidates, RF ablation provides an alternative treatment option at a significantly lower cost.

Cost of atrial fibrillation: invasive vs non-invasive management in 2012

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained cardiac arrhythmia. It places an enormous burden on the patients, caregivers and the society at large. As a chronic illness, AF accrues significant costs related to clinical presentation, complications and loss of productivity. Novel invasive approaches to AF promise a cure in some patients and a significant reduction in AF burden in others, but are very expensive. This paper will address the cost of conventional and invasive strategies in AF care and will review the evidence on the comparative cost effectiveness of these approaches.

The cost effectiveness of radiofrequency ablation for Barrett's esophagus

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) reduces the risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) in patients with Barrett's esophagus (BE) with high-grade dysplasia (HGD), but its effects in patients without dysplasia are debatable. We analyzed the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of RFA for the management of BE.

METHODS

We constructed a decision analytic Markov model. We conducted separate analyses of hypothetical cohorts of patients with BE with dysplasia (HGD or low-grade [LGD]) and without dysplasia. In the analysis of the group with HGD, we compared results of initial RFA with endoscopic surveillance with surgery when cancer was detected. In analyzing the group with LGD or no dysplasia, we compared 3 strategies: endoscopic surveillance with surgery when cancer was detected (S1), endoscopic surveillance with RFA when HGD was detected (S2), and initial RFA followed by endoscopic surveillance (S3).

RESULTS

Among patients with HGD, initial RFA was more effective and less costly than endoscopic surveillance. Among patients with LGD, when S3 was compared with S2, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $18,231/quality-adjusted life-year, assuming an annual rate of progression rate from LGD to EAC of 0.5%/year. For patients without dysplasia, S2 was more effective and less costly than S1. In a comparison of S3 with S2, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were $205,500, $124,796, and $118,338/quality-adjusted life-year using annual rates of progression of no dysplasia to EAC of 0.12%, 0.33%, or 0.5% per year, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

By using updated data, initial RFA might not be cost effective for patients with BE without dysplasia, within the range of plausible rates of progression of BE to EAC, and be prohibitively expensive, from a policy perspective. RFA might be cost effective for confirmed and stable LGD. Initial RFA is more effective and less costly than endoscopic surveillance in HGD.

Treatment of osteoid osteoma using CT-guided radiofrequency ablation versus MR-guided laser ablation: a cost comparison

OBJECTIVE

To compare the costs of CT-guided radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and MR-guided laser ablation (LA) for minimally invasive percutaneous treatment of osteoid osteoma.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between November 2005 and October 2011, 20 patients (14 males, 6 females, mean age 20.3±9.1 years) underwent CT-guided RFA and 24 patients (18 males, 6 females; mean age, 23.8±13.8 years) MR-guided LA (open 1.0 Tesla, Panorama HFO, Philips, Best, Netherlands) for osteoid osteoma diagnosed on the basis of clinical presentation and imaging findings. Prorated costs of equipment use (purchase, depreciation, and maintenance), staff costs, and expenditure for disposables were identified for CT-guided RFA and MR-guided LA procedures.

RESULTS

The average total costs per patient were EUR 1762 for CT-guided RFA and EUR 1417 for MR-guided LA. These were (RFA/LA) EUR 92/260 for equipment use, EUR 149/208 for staff, and EUR 870/300 for disposables.

CONCLUSION

MR-guided LA is less expensive than CT-guided RFA for minimally invasive percutaneous ablation of osteoid osteoma. The higher costs of RFA are primarily due to the higher price of the disposable RFA probes.

Cost comparison of nephron-sparing treatments for cT1a renal masses

OBJECTIVES

Treatment options for small renal tumors have evolved from radical nephrectomy (RN) to partial nephrectomy (PN), thermal ablation, or active surveillance. With the advancement of techniques, costs differences are unclear. The objective of this study is to compare the 6-month costs associated with nephron-sparing procedures for cT1a renal tumors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a review of patients diagnosed with a solitary cT1a renal mass who underwent surgical treatment from June 2008 to May 2011. Open partial nephrectomy (OPN), robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RLPN), laparoscopic radio-frequency ablation (LRFA), or computed tomography guided radio frequency ablation (CTRFA) was performed on 173 patients. Cost data were collected for surgical costs, associated hospital stay, and the 6-month postoperative period.

RESULTS

Patients underwent surgery, including 52 OPN, 48 RLPN, 44 LRFA, and 29 CTRFA. Median total costs associated were $17,018, $20,314, $13,965, and $6,475, for OPN, RLPN, LRFA, and CTRFA, respectively. When stratified by approach differences were noted for total cost (P < 0.001), operating room (OR) time (P < 0.001), surgical supply (P < 0.001), and room and board (P < 0.001) in univariable analysis. Multivariable linear regression (R(2) = 0.966) showed surgical approach (P = 0.007), length of stay (P < 0.001), and OR time (P < 0.001) to be significant predictors of total cost. However, tumor size (P = 0.175), and Charlson comorbidity index (P = 0.078) were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Six-month cost of nephron-sparing surgery is lowest with radio frequency ablation (RFA) by either laparoscopic or computed tomography (CT)-guided approach compared to RLPN and OPN. As oncologic and safety outcomes improve and become comparable in all nephron-sparing surgery (NSS) approaches, cost of each procedure will start to play a stronger role in the clinical and healthcare policy setting.

[Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation: Health Technology Assessment Report from the Italian Association of Arrhythmology and Cardiac Pacing (AIAC)]

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained cardiac arrhythmia and significantly impact patients' quality of life, morbidity and mortality. The number of affected patients is expected to increase as well as the costs associated with AF management, mainly driven by hospitalizations. Over the last decade, catheter ablation techniques targeting pulmonary vein isolation have demonstrated to be effective in treating AF and preventing AF recurrence. This Health Technology Assessment report of the Italian Association of Arrhythmology and Cardiac Pacing (AIAC) aims to define the current role of catheter ablation of AF in terms of effectiveness, efficiency and appropriateness. On the basis of an extensive review of the available literature, this report provides (i) an overview of the epidemiology, clinical impact and socio-economic burden of AF; (ii) an evaluation of therapeutic options other than catheter ablation of AF; and (iii) a detailed presentation of clinical outcomes and cost-benefit ratio associated with catheter ablation. The costs of catheter ablation of AF in Italy were obtained using a bottom-up analysis of a resource utilization survey of 52 hospitals that were considered a representative sample, including 4 Centers that contributed with additional unit cost information in a separate questionnaire. An analysis of budget impact was also performed to evaluate the impact of ablation on the management costs of AF. Results of this analysis show that (1) catheter ablation is effective, safe and superior to antiarrhythmic drug therapy in maintaining sinus rhythm; (2) the cost of an ablation procedure in Italy typically ranges from €8868 to €9455, though current reimbursement remains insufficient, covering only about 60% of the costs; (3) the costs of follow-up are modest (about 8% of total costs); (4) assuming an adjustment of reimbursement to the real cost of an ablation procedure and a 5-10% increase in the annual rate of ablation procedures, after approximately 5-6 years this would result in significant incremental savings for the Italian Healthcare System. In conclusion, catheter ablation of AF is a cost-effective procedure that is inadequately reimbursed in Italy. Insufficient reimbursement may serve as disincentive to perform AF ablation, thereby limiting patient access to this treatment. Considering the healthcare system perspective, higher initial costs for ablation procedures in the short term may be offset by cost savings mainly associated with decreased hospitalizations over time.

Bronchial thermoplasty

Even with the use of maximum pharmacological treatment, asthma still remains uncontrolled in some cases. For such cases of uncontrolled asthma, a novel therapy--Bronchial Thermoplasty (BT)--has shown some promising results over the past few years. BT is application of controlled radiofrequency heat via catheter inserted through a flexible bronchoscope, to the bronchial walls. It reduces the smooth muscle mass in bronchial wall and thus results in decreased contractility. Three major trials of BT show that it does not cause any improvement in FEV1. However, BT causes improvement the quality of life and decreases the future exacerbations and emergency hospital visits due to asthma. But the benefit observed was too small to be clinically significant. Follow up (two to five years) results of these BT trials did not show any significant long-term adverse event related to BT. However, further independent large randomized controlled trials and results of application of BT in real hospital settings are needed to define its role in asthma management.

Percutaneous radiofrequency ablation of hepatocellular carcinoma compared to percutaneous ethanol injection in treatment of cirrhotic patients: an Italian randomized controlled trial

AIM

To compare 5-year survival of patients with a single hepatocellular carcinoma≤3 cm randomly assigned to receive percutaneous ethanol injection or radiofrequency ablation.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 285 patients (192 males, mean age 70 years), with a single hepatocellular carcinoma (mean diameter 2.2 cm) were randomly assigned to receive percutaneous ethanol injection (n=143) or radiofrequency ablation (n=142). The primary endpoint of the study was 5-year survival.

RESULTS

Overall 143 patients underwent percutaneous ethanol injection and 128 radiofrequency ablation. In consideration of segmental location, in fact, 14 patients with 14 hepatocellular carcinomas could not be treated with established radiofrequency and were treated with percutaneous ethanol injection; these patients were not included in the survival evaluation. In the percutaneous ethanol injection and in the radiofrequency ablation groups, 3- and 5-year survival rates of 74% and 68%, and 78% and 68%, and 79% and 70% [corrected] respectively, were observed (p=n.s). In the percutaneous ethanol injection group, 3- and 5-year local recurrence rates were 9.4% and 12.8% respectively; in the radiofrequency group, the 3 and 5 years local recurrence rates were 7.8% and 11.7%, respectively (p=n.s.). The overall costs of percutaneous ethanol injection and radiofrequency ablation were 1359 Euros and 171.000 Euros, respectively (p<0.0001)

CONCLUSION

Percutaneous ethanol injection and radiofrequency ablation conferred similar 5-year survival. Feasibility is not the same for both procedures. Percutaneous ethanol injection is much cheaper than radiofrequency ablation and should be considered whether in poor and rich countries.

Getting your signals straight. Comparing radio-frequency ablation and cryoablation for treating cardiac arrhythmias

Radio-frequency ablation has proven to be an effective method for treating cardiac arrhythmias. However, a newer treatment method called cryoablation is becoming increasingly popular. In this article, we discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each.

Saving lives, money and resources: drug and CABG/PCI use after myocardial infarction in a Swedish record-linkage study

BACKGROUND

Drug costs are increasing despite the introduction of cheaper generic drugs. The aim of the present study was to analyse the entire costs of hospital care, out-patient care, and the cost of drugs for 16 months following a myocardial infarction (MI) to see to what extent drug costs contribute to the overall costs of care.

METHODS

Diagnoses and costs for care as well as mortality data obtained from the Västra Götaland Region, Sweden, and drug costs from the Swedish Board of Health and Welfare, were merged in a computer file. Patients registered from 1 July 2005 to 30 June 2006 were followed from 28 days after an MI, with follow-up until 31 October 2006.

RESULTS

Of 4,725 patients, 711 died before the start of the study and 721 during follow-up. Higher age [hazard ratio (HR, 95%CI) = 1.06 (1.05-1.07)], previous MI [HR = 1.31 (1.13-1.53)] and diabetes mellitus [HR = 1.34 (1.13-1.58)] were associated with increased mortality, which decreased with coronary interventions: CABG/PCI [HR = 0.19 (0.14-0.27)]. In a multivariable analysis, mortality was lower for patients taking simvastatin [HR = 0.62 (0.50-0.76)] and clopidogrel [HR = 0.58 (0.46-0.74)].

CONCLUSION

Costs for out-patient care accounted for 25% and drugs for 5% of total costs. If patients not treated with simvastatin or clopidogrel had received these drugs, an additional 154-306 lives might have been saved. Drug costs would be higher, but total costs lower. Thus, even expensive drugs may reduce overall costs.

Cost-effectiveness of radiofrequency catheter ablation compared with antiarrhythmic drug therapy for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFA) has emerged as an important treatment strategy for atrial fibrillation (AF). The potential cost-effectiveness of RFA for AF, relative to antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) therapy, has not been fully explored from a US perspective.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We constructed a Markov disease simulation model for a hypothetical cohort of patients with drug-refractory paroxysmal AF, treated either with RFA with/without AAD or AAD alone. Costs and quality-adjusted life-years were projected over 5 years. Model inputs were drawn from published clinical trial and registry data, from new registry and trial data analysis, and from data prospectively collected from patients with AF treated with RFA at our institution. We assumed no benefit from ablation on stroke, heart failure or death, but did estimate changes in quality-adjusted life expectancy using data from several AF cohorts. In the base case scenario, cumulative costs with the RFA and AAD strategies were $26,584 and $19,898, respectively. Over 5 years, quality-adjusted life expectancy was 3.51 quality-adjusted life-years with RFA versus 3.38 for the AAD group. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for RFA versus AAD was thus $51,431 per quality-adjusted life-year. Model results were most sensitive to time horizon, the relative utility weights of successful ablation versus unsuccessful drug therapy, and to the cost of an ablation procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

RFA with/without AAD for symptomatic, drug-refractory paroxysmal AF appears to be reasonably cost-effective compared with AAD therapy alone from the perspective of the US health care system, based on improved quality of life and avoidance of future health care costs.

Surgical treatments for men with benign prostatic enlargement: cost effectiveness study

OBJECTIVE

To determine which surgical treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms suggestive of benign prostate enlargement is cost effective.

DESIGN

Care pathways describing credible treatment strategies were decided by consensus. Cost-utility analysis used Markov modelling and Monte Carlo simulation.

DATA SOURCES

Clinical effectiveness data came from a systematic review and an individual level dataset. Utility values came from previous economic evaluations. Costs were calculated from National Health Service (NHS) and commercial sources.

METHODS

The Markov model included parameters with associated measures of uncertainty describing health states between which individuals might move at three monthly intervals over 10 years. Successive annual cohorts of 25,000 men were entered into the model and the probability that treatment strategies were cost effective was assessed with Monte Carlo simulation with 10,000 iterations.

RESULTS

A treatment strategy of initial diathermy vaporisation of the prostate followed by endoscopic holmium laser enucleation of the prostate in case of failure to benefit or subsequent relapse had an 85% probability of being cost effective at a willingness to pay value of pound20,000 (euro21,595, $28,686)/quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Other strategies with diathermy vaporisation as the initial treatment were generally cheaper and more effective than the current standard of transurethral resection repeated once if necessary. The use of potassium titanyl phosphate laser vaporisation incurred higher costs and was less effective than transurethral resection, and strategies involving initial minimally invasive treatment with microwave thermotherapy were not cost effective. Findings were unchanged by wide ranging sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSION

The outcome of this economic model should be interpreted cautiously because of the limitations of the data used. The finding that initial vaporisation followed by holmium laser enucleation for failure or relapse might be advantageous both to men with lower urinary tract symptoms and to healthcare providers requires confirmation in a good quality prospective clinical trial before any change in current practice. Potassium titanyl phosphate laser vaporisation was unlikely to be cost effective in our model, which argues against its unrestricted use until further evidence of effectiveness and cost reduction is obtained.

Time and cost savings in arthroscopic subacromial decompression: the use of bipolar versus monopolar radiofrequency

There is currently an increased interest in the use of electro surgery in arthroscopy. Since the introduction of the bipolar arthroscopic radiofrequency (RF) wand, it has started to replace the classic Bovie monopolar probe on the assumption that the new technology provides multifunctional devices, combining both tissue removal and haemostasis into one instrument. The more efficient tissue ablation and precise haemostasis achieved with these instruments should result in a significant reduction in the operative time and cost. We ran a prospective comparative randomised study to test this hypothesis. Forty patients underwent arthroscopic subacromial decompression, randomised into two groups. The group treated with bipolar RF was associated with an average operative time saving of 8 min (P < 0.0001) and an average cost saving of pound 83 (euro 111) per case (P < 0.003), compared to monopolar RF. Bipolar RF is the instrument of choice in arthroscopic shoulder surgery, as it saves time and money.