Literature DB >> 27221264

Measurements of central corneal thickness and endothelial parameters with three different non-contact specular microscopy devices.

Ozgur Cakici1, Remzi Karadag2, Huseyin Bayramlar2, Efe Koyun3.   

Abstract

We aimed to compare the measurements of central corneal thickness (CCT) and endothelial parameters with three different non-contact specular microscopy (SM) devices. Fifteen eyes of 15 healthy individuals (6 males; 9 females) were enrolled in the study. Mean age was 37.93 ± 15.13 years. Endothelial parameters and CCT were measured with Nidek CEM-530, Topcon SP-3000P, and Tomey EM-3000 SM devices by the same physician. Endothelial parameters included endothelial cell count (ECC), maximum, minimum, and average endothelial cell size. and hexagonality ratio. There were no statistically significant differences in ECC, CTT, and average endothelial size (AES) between the devices (p > 0.05). The measurement of maximum endothelial size (MES) was different between Nidek SM and Topcon SM devices (p = 0.001), but there was no difference in MES between Nidek SM and Tomey SM (p = 0.058), and between Topcon SM and Tomey SM (p = 0.081). There was no difference in minimum endothelial size (MinES) between Nidek SM and Topcon SM (p = 0.794); however, there was a significant difference in MinES between Tomey SM and Nidek SM (p < 0.001), and between Tomey SM and Topcon SM (p < 0.001). Comparison of hexagonality ratio showed statistically significant difference between the devices (p < 0.001). No significant differences in the measurements of ECC, CCT, and AES were detected between different SM devices, whereas a statistically significant difference in hexagonality ratio was detected between the devices. These devices should not be used alternatively in the endothelial morphology assessment in patient's follow-up.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Corneal thickness; Endothelial cell count; Endothelial cell size; Endothelial parameters; Hexagonality; Specular microscopy

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27221264     DOI: 10.1007/s10792-016-0264-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Ophthalmol        ISSN: 0165-5701            Impact factor:   2.031


  20 in total

1.  Corneal endothelial cell density and morphology in normal Indian eyes.

Authors:  S K Rao; P Ranjan Sen; R Fogla; S Gangadharan; P Padmanabhan; S S Badrinath
Journal:  Cornea       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 2.651

2.  Central corneal thickness measurements with different imaging devices and ultrasound pachymetry.

Authors:  Lai-Yong Tai; Keat-Ween Khaw; Choung-Min Ng; Visvaraja Subrayan
Journal:  Cornea       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 2.651

3.  Keratectasia after laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK): evaluation of the calculated residual stromal bed thickness.

Authors:  Richard J Ou; Edward L Shaw; Ben J Glasgow
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 5.258

4.  The Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study: baseline factors that predict the onset of primary open-angle glaucoma.

Authors:  Mae O Gordon; Julia A Beiser; James D Brandt; Dale K Heuer; Eve J Higginbotham; Chris A Johnson; John L Keltner; J Philip Miller; Richard K Parrish; M Roy Wilson; Michael A Kass
Journal:  Arch Ophthalmol       Date:  2002-06

5.  Contact lens-induced corneal peripheral swelling differences with extended wear.

Authors:  Raul Martin; Victoria de Juan; Guadalupe Rodriguez; Soraya Fonseca; Sofia Martin
Journal:  Cornea       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 2.651

6.  Comparison of central corneal thickness measurements by Pentacam, noncontact specular microscope, and ultrasound pachymetry in normal and post-LASIK eyes.

Authors:  Saleh Al-Ageel; Abdulrahman M Al-Muammar
Journal:  Saudi J Ophthalmol       Date:  2009-10-24

7.  Central corneal thickness as a risk factor for advanced glaucoma damage.

Authors:  Leon W Herndon; Jennifer S Weizer; Sandra S Stinnett
Journal:  Arch Ophthalmol       Date:  2004-01

8.  Comparison and evaluation of central corneal thickness using 2 new noncontact specular microscopes and conventional pachymetry devices.

Authors:  Fangjun Bao; Qinmei Wang; Shiming Cheng; Giacomo Savini; Weicong Lu; Yifan Feng; Ye Yu; Jinhai Huang
Journal:  Cornea       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 2.651

9.  Comparison of the precision of the Topcon SP-3000P specular microscope and an ultrasound pachymeter.

Authors:  Turki M Almubrad; Uchechukwu L Osuagwu; Ibrahim Alabbadi; Kelechi C Ogbuehi
Journal:  Clin Ophthalmol       Date:  2011-06-24

Review 10.  Historical Review and Update of Surgical Treatment for Corneal Endothelial Diseases.

Authors:  José L Güell; Mostafa A El Husseiny; Felicidad Manero; Oscar Gris; Dani Elies
Journal:  Ophthalmol Ther       Date:  2014-02-18
View more
  4 in total

1.  Comparison of central corneal thickness and endothelial cell measurements by Scheimpflug camera system and two noncontact specular microscopes.

Authors:  Irmak Karaca; Suzan Guven Yilmaz; Melis Palamar; Halil Ates
Journal:  Int Ophthalmol       Date:  2017-07-03       Impact factor: 2.031

2.  Improved Interchangeability with Different Corneal Specular Microscopes for Quantitative Endothelial Cell Analysis.

Authors:  Gwyneth A van Rijn; C Jasper F Wijnen; Bart Th van Dooren; Yanny Yy Cheng; Jan-Willem M Beenakker; Gregorius Pm Luyten
Journal:  Clin Ophthalmol       Date:  2020-01-13

3.  Measurement of corneal thickness using Pentacam HR versus Nidek CEM-530 specular microscopy.

Authors:  Maddalena De Bernardo; Palmiro Cornetta; Giuseppe Marotta; Giulio Salerno; Ilaria De Pascale; Nicola Rosa
Journal:  J Int Med Res       Date:  2019-12-26       Impact factor: 1.671

4.  Two-year results after combined phacoemulsification and iris-fixated phakic intraocular lens removal.

Authors:  Zoraida Solaiga Gaurisankar; Gwyneth A van Rijn; Yanny Y Y Cheng; Gregorius P M Luyten; Jan-Willem M Beenakker
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2021-10-16       Impact factor: 3.117

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.