Literature DB >> 21660067

In vivo confocal microscopy of the corneal endothelium: comparison of three morphometry methods after corneal transplantation.

S Jonuscheit1, M J Doughty, K Ramaesh.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the endothelium of corneal grafts by in vivo confocal microscopy (IVCM), and to evaluate an automated endothelial software system in comparison with a manual cell count and planimetry. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Overall, 40 corneal grafts (20 deep anterior lamellar keratoplasties (DALKs) and 20 penetrating keratoplasties (PKs)) were assessed by scanning-slit IVCM. The endothelial cell density (ECD) was estimated with the automated and the manual cell count method of the instrument's Nidek Advanced Vision Information System (NAVIS) software. The results were compared with planimetry as the reference method, and the agreement was assessed.
RESULTS: The mean (±SD) automated ECD was 2278±524 cells/mm(2) (range 1167-3192 cells/mm(2)), whereas the manual cell count method gave significantly lower ECDs with a mean of 1213±677 cells/mm(2) (range 218-2440 cells/mm(2); P<0.001). The manual cell counts were also significantly lower than those by planimetry, with a mean ECD of 1617±813 cells/mm(2) (range 336-2941, P<0.001). Bland-Altman analyses indicated that the limits of agreement (LoA) between the automated and the planimetry method were -671 and +1992 cells/mm(2), whereas they were -1000 and +202 cells/mm(2) when comparing the manual cell counts with planimetry.
CONCLUSION: Following keratoplasty, the NAVIS automated method is likely to overestimate endothelial cell counts due to oversegmenting of the cell domains. Automated ECDs are substantially higher than those by the manual counting method or planimetry. The differences are considerably larger post-keratoplasty than for normal corneas, and the methods should not be used interchangeably.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21660067      PMCID: PMC3178261          DOI: 10.1038/eye.2011.121

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eye (Lond)        ISSN: 0950-222X            Impact factor:   3.775


  37 in total

1.  Comparison of corneal endothelial cell images from a noncontact specular microscope and a scanning confocal microscope.

Authors:  Anna S Kitzmann; Eric J Winter; Cherie B Nau; Jay W McLaren; David O Hodge; William M Bourne
Journal:  Cornea       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 2.651

2.  Corneal innervation and cellular changes after corneal transplantation: an in vivo confocal microscopy study.

Authors:  Rachael L Niederer; Divya Perumal; Trevor Sherwin; Charles N J McGhee
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 4.799

3.  Could the coefficient of variation (COV) of the corneal endothelium be overestimated when a centre-dot method is used?

Authors:  Michael J Doughty
Journal:  Clin Exp Optom       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 2.742

4.  Agreement between two non-contact specular microscopes: Topcon SP2000P versus Rhine-Tec.

Authors:  Gilles Thuret; Nilanjana Deb-Joardar; Min Zhao; P Gain; Yann Gavet; Frederic Nguyen
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 4.638

5.  An evaluation of the ConfoScan3 for corneal endothelial morphology analysis.

Authors:  Huan Sheng; Emily J Parker; Mark A Bullimore
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 1.973

Review 6.  Quantitative analysis of corneal microstructure in keratoconus utilising in vivo confocal microscopy.

Authors:  K H Weed; C J MacEwen; A Cox; C N J McGhee
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2006-02-24       Impact factor: 3.775

7.  Reliability of a video-based noncontact specular microscope for assessing the corneal endothelium.

Authors:  Ana Prinz; Judit Varga; Oliver Findl
Journal:  Cornea       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 2.651

8.  A comparison of two methods for estimating polymegethism in cell areas of the human corneal endothelium.

Authors:  Michael J Doughty; Emil Oblak
Journal:  Ophthalmic Physiol Opt       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 3.117

9.  Endothelial cell density in donor corneas: a comparison of automatic software programs with manual counting.

Authors:  Christoph Hirneiss; Ricarda G Schumann; Martin Grüterich; Ulrich C Welge-Luessen; Anselm Kampik; Aljoscha S Neubauer
Journal:  Cornea       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 2.651

10.  Corneal endothelium and postoperative outcomes 15 years after penetrating keratoplasty.

Authors:  Sanjay V Patel; David O Hodge; William M Bourne
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 5.258

View more
  10 in total

1.  Assessment of a variable frame (polygonal) method to estimate corneal endothelial cell counts after corneal transplantation.

Authors:  S Jonuscheit; M J Doughty; K Ramaesh
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2012-03-23       Impact factor: 3.775

2.  Assessment of the reliability of endothelial cell-density estimates in the presence of pseudoguttata.

Authors:  Michael J Doughty; Sven Jonuscheit; Norman F Button
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2011-09-13       Impact factor: 3.117

3.  Peripheral Endothelial Cell Count Is a Predictor of Disease Severity in Advanced Fuchs Endothelial Corneal Dystrophy.

Authors:  Zeba A Syed; Jennifer A Tran; Ula V Jurkunas
Journal:  Cornea       Date:  2017-10       Impact factor: 2.651

4.  Objective assessment of the corneal endothelium in Fuchs' endothelial dystrophy.

Authors:  Jay W McLaren; Lori A Bachman; Katrina M Kane; Sanjay V Patel
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2014-02-26       Impact factor: 4.799

5.  Comparison of automated vs manual analysis of corneal endothelial cell density and morphology in normal and corneal endothelial dystrophy-affected dogs.

Authors:  Hidetaka Miyagi; Amelia A Stanley; Tanvi J Chokshi; Carina Y Pasqualino; Alyssa L Hoehn; Christopher J Murphy; Sara M Thomasy
Journal:  Vet Ophthalmol       Date:  2019-06-09       Impact factor: 1.444

6.  Smartphone-based imaging of the corneal endothelium at sub-cellular resolution.

Authors:  Devrim Toslak; Damber Thapa; Muhammet Kazim Erol; Yanjun Chen; Xincheng Yao
Journal:  J Mod Opt       Date:  2016-12-25       Impact factor: 1.464

7.  Fully automatic evaluation of the corneal endothelium from in vivo confocal microscopy.

Authors:  Bettina Selig; Koenraad A Vermeer; Bernd Rieger; Toine Hillenaar; Cris L Luengo Hendriks
Journal:  BMC Med Imaging       Date:  2015-04-26       Impact factor: 1.930

8.  Objective assessment of changes in nuclear morphology and cell distribution following induction of apoptosis.

Authors:  Jon R Eidet; Lara Pasovic; Rima Maria; Catherine J Jackson; Tor P Utheim
Journal:  Diagn Pathol       Date:  2014-05-12       Impact factor: 2.644

9.  Assessment of central corneal thickness and corneal endothelial morphology using ultrasound pachymetry, non-contact specular microscopy, and Confoscan 4 confocal microscopy.

Authors:  Haya Matuoq Al Farhan; Wafa'a Majed Al Otaibi; Hanouf Mohammed Al Razqan; Alanoud Abdullah Al Harqan
Journal:  BMC Ophthalmol       Date:  2013-11-25       Impact factor: 2.209

10.  Unbiased corneal tissue analysis using Gabor-domain optical coherence microscopy and machine learning for automatic segmentation of corneal endothelial cells.

Authors:  Cristina Canavesi; Andrea Cogliati; Holly B Hindman
Journal:  J Biomed Opt       Date:  2020-08       Impact factor: 3.170

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.