Literature DB >> 22441023

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

S Jonuscheit1, M J Doughty, K Ramaesh.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To assess the agreement of the 'polygonal' variable frame cell count option on a confocal microscope after keratoplasty, with planimetry as the reference method.
METHODS: One hundred clear corneal grafts of 83 patients attending the cornea clinic at Gartnavel General Hospital in Glasgow underwent slit-scanning in vivoconfocal microscopy. Endothelial cell images were assessed with the Nidek Advanced Vision Information System (NAVIS), using the polygonal variable frame and the manual fixed-frame methods. Planimetry was used as the reference. The agreement between methods was assessed by Bland-Altman analysis.
RESULTS: Planimetry provided a mean (± SD) endothelial cell density (ECD) of 1348 ± 726 cells/mm(2), a value that was very similar to that found by the polygonal method (1404 ± 784 cells/mm(2)). The fixed-frame method provided lower cell counts with a mean ECD of 1026 ± 610 cells/mm(2) (P<0.001). When compared with the reference ECD, the polygonal method overestimated the ECD only very slightly with a mean difference of 58 cells/mm(2) (limits of agreement, LoA, of -222 and 339 cells/mm(2)). Manual counting underestimated the ECD with a mean difference of -320 cells/mm(2) (LoA -814 and 173 cell/mm(2)).
CONCLUSION: Following keratoplasty, endothelial cell counts with the NAVIS polygonal method are in good agreement with planimetry. The 'polygonal' option is proposed as the method of choice for clinical applications with this confocal microscope and a good compromise between reliability and ease of use.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22441023      PMCID: PMC3376288          DOI: 10.1038/eye.2012.42

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


  21 in total

Review 1.  Measuring agreement in method comparison studies.

Authors:  J M Bland; D G Altman
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 3.021

2.  Reliability and reproducibility of corneal endothelial image analysis by in vivo confocal microscopy.

Authors:  L Imre; A Nagymihály
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 3.117

3.  Comparison of endothelial cell count using confocal and contact specular microscopy.

Authors:  Christina M C Klais; Jens Bühren; Thomas Kohnen
Journal:  Ophthalmologica       Date:  2003 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 3.250

4.  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

5.  Comparison of two semiautomated methods for evaluating endothelial cells of eye bank corneas.

Authors:  Nilanjana Deb-Joardar; Gilles Thuret; Min Zhao; Sophie Acquart; Michel Péoc'h; Olivier Garraud; Philippe Gain
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 4.799

6.  Comparison of corneal endothelial image analysis by Konan SP8000 noncontact and Bio-Optics Bambi systems.

Authors:  B A Benetz; E Diaconu; S J Bowlin; S S Oak; R A Laing; J H Lass
Journal:  Cornea       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 2.651

7.  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

Review 8.  Toward a quantitative analysis of corneal endothelial cell morphology: a review of techniques and their application.

Authors:  M J Doughty
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  1989-09       Impact factor: 1.973

9.  [Effects of anterior segment inflammation on the corneal endothelium. Morphometric study with panoramic photography and cell shape analysis].

Authors:  A Okubo; S Inoda; K Ohara
Journal:  Nippon Ganka Gakkai Zasshi       Date:  1983

10.  Specular microscopy ancillary study methods for donor endothelial cell density determination of Cornea Donor Study images.

Authors:  Beth Ann Benetz; Robin L Gal; Katrina J Ruedy; Carmella Rice; Roy W Beck; Andrea D Kalajian; Jonathan H Lass
Journal:  Curr Eye Res       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 2.424

View more
  5 in total

1.  Patients With Dry Eye Disease and Low Subbasal Nerve Density Are at High Risk for Accelerated Corneal Endothelial Cell Loss.

Authors:  Ahmad Kheirkhah; Vannarut Satitpitakul; Pedram Hamrah; Reza Dana
Journal:  Cornea       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 2.651

2.  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

3.  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

4.  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

5.  Corneal endothelial cell density in healthy Caucasian population.

Authors:  Rahmi Duman; Mediha Tok Çevik; Sadık Görkem Çevik; Reşat Duman; İrfan Perente
Journal:  Saudi J Ophthalmol       Date:  2016-11-02
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.