Editorial
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2016. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.
World J Gastrointest Endosc. Jan 10, 2016; 8(1): 1-3
Published online Jan 10, 2016. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v8.i1.1
Confocal endomicroscopy: Is it time to move on?
Carlos Robles-Medranda
Carlos Robles-Medranda, Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Division, Instituto Ecuatoriano de Enfermedades Digestivas, University Hospital OMNI, Guayaquil 090505, Ecuador
Author contributions: Robles-Medranda C solely contributed to this work.
Conflict-of-interest statement: The author has no conflict of interests.
Open-Access: This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Correspondence to: Carlos Robles-Medranda, MD, Head of the Endoscopy Division, Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Division, Instituto Ecuatoriano de Enfermedades Digestivas, University Hospital OMNI, Av. Abel Romeo Castillo y Av. Juan Tanca Marengo, Torre Vitalis, Mezanine 3, Guayaquil 090505, Ecuador. carlosoakm@yahoo.es
Telephone: +593-4-2109180 Fax: +593-4-2109180
Received: May 28, 2015
Peer-review started: May 31, 2015
First decision: August 16, 2015
Revised: September 5, 2015
Accepted: November 13, 2015
Article in press: November 17, 2015
Published online: January 10, 2016
Core Tip

Core tip: Confocal laser endomicroscopy (CLE) permits in-vivo microscopy evaluation during endoscopy procedures. It can be used in all the parts of the gastrointestinal tract with accuracy in about 86% to 96%. In spite of its high accuracy as well as several clinical applications, CLE is still not used in routine clinical practice. This could be correlated to many factors such as: cost of the procedure, lack of codification and reimbursement in some countries, absence of standard of care indications, availability, physician image-interpretation training, medico-legal problems, and the role of the pathologist. However, these limitations are relative, and solutions could be found based on new research leading to increased consensus overcoming present barriers.