TS03 Inc Trust Units TSTIF

RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:No real news yet??

[Drrwong]

Thank you for your response, SPDMGR1

I continue to see the VP4 process to be no more harmful than other cleaning methods (pertaining to scopes logevity).  The fact that Pentax is a co-filer with TSO3 on the pending extended claims show us they are happy with the longevity of Pentax scopes after rigourous testing with many many VP4 cycles.   Based on that, I do not see any scientific basis for Olympus to void the warranty of their scopes that are processed by VP4, but it is up to them to decide.

On the accreditation front, I understand there are procedures to be followed.  At the end, we must understand why these procedures are in place--to provide "best practices" for patient care and safety.  I think we can all agree terminal sterilization is best for patient care (vs. disinfection).  And if we buy the idea that VP4 does not raise the cost of sterilization (after taking into account up-front capital cost, cost/load, medical errors, litigation expenses, complications/hospital admissions, etc.), then why wouldn't hospitals / payers (CMS, insurance) / regulators (FDA, AAMI, etc.) adopt it, eventually.  We can argue how long this will take, but it is very clear to me where this is going...