PURPOSE: In children, but not in the elderly, an association exists between corneal diameter and endothelial cell density (ECD). We tested whether such an association also held true in young adults. METHODS: The eyes of 35 healthy subjects (mean age, 23.1 +/- 3.1 years) were photographed by using a video camera and a noncontact endothelial microscope. Both sets of images were analyzed with image software and the contour method to measure corneal diameter, ECD, and endothelial coefficients. Axial lengths, refractive errors, and corneal curvatures were measured by using an A-scan ultrasonic biometer and kerato-refractometer. Measurements, averaged for the right and left eyes, were analyzed depending on (1) use of contact lenses, (2) ametropia, and on whether (3) axial length or (4) corneal diameter was above or below group means. Differences were tested for statistical significance with independent t tests and association with the Pearson correlation coefficient. RESULTS: ECD, corneal diameter, and spherical equivalent refraction were 3022 +/- 262 cells/mm2, 12.0 +/- 0.5 mm, and -3.1 +/- 2.5 D, respectively. The only significant differences between wearers and nonwearers of contact lenses were the spherical refractive equivalent and axial length. There was no correlation between ECD and corneal diameter or axial length. CONCLUSIONS: As opposed to previously reported results in children, but as found in the elderly, there is no correlation between ECD and corneal diameter in young adults. Therefore, corneal size cannot be considered a determinant of ECD in young adults.
PURPOSE: In children, but not in the elderly, an association exists between corneal diameter and endothelial cell density (ECD). We tested whether such an association also held true in young adults. METHODS: The eyes of 35 healthy subjects (mean age, 23.1 +/- 3.1 years) were photographed by using a video camera and a noncontact endothelial microscope. Both sets of images were analyzed with image software and the contour method to measure corneal diameter, ECD, and endothelial coefficients. Axial lengths, refractive errors, and corneal curvatures were measured by using an A-scan ultrasonic biometer and kerato-refractometer. Measurements, averaged for the right and left eyes, were analyzed depending on (1) use of contact lenses, (2) ametropia, and on whether (3) axial length or (4) corneal diameter was above or below group means. Differences were tested for statistical significance with independent t tests and association with the Pearson correlation coefficient. RESULTS:ECD, corneal diameter, and spherical equivalent refraction were 3022 +/- 262 cells/mm2, 12.0 +/- 0.5 mm, and -3.1 +/- 2.5 D, respectively. The only significant differences between wearers and nonwearers of contact lenses were the spherical refractive equivalent and axial length. There was no correlation between ECD and corneal diameter or axial length. CONCLUSIONS: As opposed to previously reported results in children, but as found in the elderly, there is no correlation between ECD and corneal diameter in young adults. Therefore, corneal size cannot be considered a determinant of ECD in young adults.
Authors: Hassan Hashemi; Mehdi Khabazkhoob; Mohammad Hassan Emamian; Mohammad Shariati; Abbasali Yekta; Akbar Fotouhi Journal: J Curr Ophthalmol Date: 2015-10-19