Reply to Saliou et al.

• References

• 1 Verfaillie CJ, Bruno MJ, Voor in ’t holt AF et al. Withdrawal of a novel-design duodenoscope ends outbreak of a VIM-2-producing Pseudomonas aeruginosa . Endoscopy 2015; 47: 493-502
• 2 Olympus. TJF-Q180V product brochure. 07/2014; Available from: https://www.olympus-europa.com/medical/en/medical_systems/mediacentre/media_detail_7368.jsp
• 3 Buss AJ, Been MH, Borgers RP et al. Endoscope disinfection and its pitfalls – requirement for retrograde surveillance cultures. Endoscopy 2008; 40: 327-332
• 4 Kovaleva J, Peters FT, van der Mei HC et al. Transmission of infection by flexible gastrointestinal endoscopy and bronchoscopy. Clin Microbiol Rev 2013; 26: 231-254
• 5 Beilenhoff U, Neumann CS, Rey JF et al. ESGE-ESGENA guideline for quality assurance in reprocessing: microbiological surveillance testing in endoscopy. Endoscopy 2007; 39: 175-181
• 6 Direction générale de la santé (DGS), CTINILS. Eléments d’assurance qualité en hygiène relatifs au contrôle microbiologique des endoscopes et à la traçabilité en endoscopie. 2007; Available from: http://nosobase.chu-lyon.fr/recommandations/ctinils/2007_dispositifs_medicaux_CTINILS.pdf
• 7 Otter JA, Vickery K, Walker JT et al. Surface-attached cells, biofilms and biocide susceptibility: implications for hospital cleaning and disinfection. J Hosp Infect 2015; 89: 16-27
• 8 Roberts CG. The role of biofilms in reprocessing medical devices. Am J Infect Control 2013; 41: S77-S80
• 9 Muscarella LF. Inconsistencies in endoscope-reprocessing and infection-control guidelines: the importance of endoscope drying. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; 101: 2147-2154