And so I'll leave it open to my colleagues to maybe carry that conversation forward.

I would comment to dovetail on Sal's comments.

In my view, I look at both of these trials as a vascular surgeon is probably two of the most foundational, important sort of trials that are still relevant in many respects to how we think about treatment paradigms for aneurysm disease and that they open the gateway for more contemporary trials that we'll discuss later, and aortic guidelines in current practice.

I guess it's worth noting that as Sal pointed out, they do pivot around this central hypothesis of this fixture of five and a half centimeters.

And that's probably a reference point that was long ante dates these studies.

And one point that I think it's important if we're talking about important trials is the time.

As you aptly pointed out, the UK SAT trial was out in 1998.

So I think that's the main take-home for me, but it was heavily discussed and people tried to discuss subgroups here and there and reasons why they couldn't show a benefit to because there was such a strong belief in this low-risk EVAR, so it was difficult for them to get through it.

I'll

answer that.

Please.

We have this extraordinary, in my experience, Ability to educate ourselves, I've never seen in a firm before.

We not only have one product, Lunch and Learn, a week where an outside vendor comes in to teach us something about their product or their process, but we teach in-house.

We teach everything from fire resiliency to sustainability.

We have usually a theme every year where every single person research is a part of a topic and they're presenting to the team on a monthly or every other week basis.

So they're going to go, oh, well, let's just add density.