PURPOSE: Until now, organ-cultured corneal endothelial mosaic has been assessed in France by cell counting using a calibrated graticule, or by drawing cells on a computerized image. The former method is unsatisfactory because it is characterized by a lack of objective evaluation of the cell surface and hexagonality and it requires an experienced technician. The latter method is time-consuming and requires careful attention. We aimed to make an efficient, fast and easy to use, automated digital analyzer of video images of the corneal endothelium. METHODS: The hardware included a PC Pentium III ((R)) 800 MHz-Ram 256, a Data Translation 3155 acquisition card, a Sony SC 75 CE CCD camera, and a 22-inch screen. Special functions for automated cell boundary determination consisted of Plug-in programs included in the ImageTool software. Calibration was performed using a calibrated micrometer. Cell densities of 40 organ-cultured corneas measured by both manual and automated counting were compared using parametric tests (Student's t test for paired variables and the Pearson correlation coefficient). RESULTS: All steps were considered more ergonomic i.e., endothelial image capture, image selection, thresholding of multiple areas of interest, automated cell count, automated detection of errors in cell boundary drawing, presentation of the results in an HTML file including the number of counted cells, cell density, coefficient of variation of cell area, cell surface histogram and cell hexagonality. The device was efficient because the global process lasted on average 7 minutes and did not require an experienced technician. The correlation between cell densities obtained with both methods was high (r=+0.84, p<0.001). The results showed an under-estimation using manual counting (2191+/-322 vs. 2273+/-457 cell/mm(2), p=0.046), compared with the automated method. CONCLUSIONS: Our automated endothelial cell analyzer is efficient and gives reliable results quickly and easily. A multicentric validation would allow us to standardize cell counts among cornea banks in our country.
PURPOSE: Until now, organ-cultured corneal endothelial mosaic has been assessed in France by cell counting using a calibrated graticule, or by drawing cells on a computerized image. The former method is unsatisfactory because it is characterized by a lack of objective evaluation of the cell surface and hexagonality and it requires an experienced technician. The latter method is time-consuming and requires careful attention. We aimed to make an efficient, fast and easy to use, automated digital analyzer of video images of the corneal endothelium. METHODS: The hardware included a PC Pentium III ((R)) 800 MHz-Ram 256, a Data Translation 3155 acquisition card, a Sony SC 75 CE CCD camera, and a 22-inch screen. Special functions for automated cell boundary determination consisted of Plug-in programs included in the ImageTool software. Calibration was performed using a calibrated micrometer. Cell densities of 40 organ-cultured corneas measured by both manual and automated counting were compared using parametric tests (Student's t test for paired variables and the Pearson correlation coefficient). RESULTS: All steps were considered more ergonomic i.e., endothelial image capture, image selection, thresholding of multiple areas of interest, automated cell count, automated detection of errors in cell boundary drawing, presentation of the results in an HTML file including the number of counted cells, cell density, coefficient of variation of cell area, cell surface histogram and cell hexagonality. The device was efficient because the global process lasted on average 7 minutes and did not require an experienced technician. The correlation between cell densities obtained with both methods was high (r=+0.84, p<0.001). The results showed an under-estimation using manual counting (2191+/-322 vs. 2273+/-457 cell/mm(2), p=0.046), compared with the automated method. CONCLUSIONS: Our automated endothelial cell analyzer is efficient and gives reliable results quickly and easily. A multicentric validation would allow us to standardize cell counts among cornea banks in our country.
Authors: G Thuret; C Manissolle; S Acquart; J-C Le Petit; J Maugery; L Campos-Guyotat; M J Doughty; P Gain Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 4.638