PURPOSE: To compare endothelial cell analysis obtained by noncontact specular and confocal microscopy, using the Konan NSP-9900 and Nidek ConfoScan4 systems, respectively. METHODS: Three groups including 70 healthy eyes, 49 eyes with Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy (FECD), and 78 eyes with glaucoma were examined with both the Konan NSP-9900 specular microscope and the Nidek ConfocScan4 confocal microscope. Certified graders at the Doheny Image Reading Center compared corneal endothelial images from both instruments side by side to assess image quality. Endothelial cell density (ECD) measurements were calculated and compared using three different modalities: (1) each instrument's fully automated analysis; (2) each instrument's semiautomatic analysis with grader input; and (3) manual grading methods by certified grader. RESULTS: All normal eyes yielded gradable endothelial images, and most but not all glaucomatous eyes yielded images with high enough image quality to allow grading. In addition, in corneas with severe FECD, poor image quality precluded ECD grading by specular microscopy in 20 eyes (40.8%) but in only 4 (8.2%) confocal images from the same eyes. For the gradable images, the ECD values obtained using the manual grading method from either device were comparable with no statistically significant difference (P>0.05) between specular and confocal devices. Machine-generated ECD values were significantly different from manual results, measuring greater in all cases with specular microscopy. Machine-generated ECD values from confocal microscopy also differed significantly from manual determinations, but not in a consistent direction. Semiautomatic methods for both instruments obtained clinically acceptable ECD values. CONCLUSIONS: Automatic machine-generated ECD measurements differed significantly from manual assessments of corneal endothelium by both specular and confocal microscopy, suggesting that automated results should be used with caution. But ECD values derived manually were comparable between the two devices in both normal and glaucomatous eyes, suggesting that manually graded images from the two instruments can be used interchangeably for reliable ECD measurements. Because of a higher proportion of gradable images, confocal microscopy may be superior to specular microscopy for ECD measurements in FECD.
PURPOSE: To compare endothelial cell analysis obtained by noncontact specular and confocal microscopy, using the Konan NSP-9900 and Nidek ConfoScan4 systems, respectively. METHODS: Three groups including 70 healthy eyes, 49 eyes with Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy (FECD), and 78 eyes with glaucoma were examined with both the Konan NSP-9900 specular microscope and the Nidek ConfocScan4 confocal microscope. Certified graders at the Doheny Image Reading Center compared corneal endothelial images from both instruments side by side to assess image quality. Endothelial cell density (ECD) measurements were calculated and compared using three different modalities: (1) each instrument's fully automated analysis; (2) each instrument's semiautomatic analysis with grader input; and (3) manual grading methods by certified grader. RESULTS: All normal eyes yielded gradable endothelial images, and most but not all glaucomatous eyes yielded images with high enough image quality to allow grading. In addition, in corneas with severe FECD, poor image quality precluded ECD grading by specular microscopy in 20 eyes (40.8%) but in only 4 (8.2%) confocal images from the same eyes. For the gradable images, the ECD values obtained using the manual grading method from either device were comparable with no statistically significant difference (P>0.05) between specular and confocal devices. Machine-generated ECD values were significantly different from manual results, measuring greater in all cases with specular microscopy. Machine-generated ECD values from confocal microscopy also differed significantly from manual determinations, but not in a consistent direction. Semiautomatic methods for both instruments obtained clinically acceptable ECD values. CONCLUSIONS: Automatic machine-generated ECD measurements differed significantly from manual assessments of corneal endothelium by both specular and confocal microscopy, suggesting that automated results should be used with caution. But ECD values derived manually were comparable between the two devices in both normal and glaucomatous eyes, suggesting that manually graded images from the two instruments can be used interchangeably for reliable ECD measurements. Because of a higher proportion of gradable images, confocal microscopy may be superior to specular microscopy for ECD measurements in FECD.
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
Authors: Juan P Vigueras-Guillén; Busra Sari; Stanley F Goes; Hans G Lemij; Jeroen van Rooij; Koenraad A Vermeer; Lucas J van Vliet Journal: BMC Biomed Eng Date: 2019-01-30
Authors: Nagaraj Kerur; Shinichi Fukuda; Daipayan Banerjee; Younghee Kim; Dongxu Fu; Ivana Apicella; Akhil Varshney; Reo Yasuma; Benjamin J Fowler; Elmira Baghdasaryan; Kenneth M Marion; Xiwen Huang; Tetsuhiro Yasuma; Yoshio Hirano; Vlad Serbulea; Meenakshi Ambati; Vidya L Ambati; Yuji Kajiwara; Kameshwari Ambati; Shuichiro Hirahara; Ana Bastos-Carvalho; Yuichiro Ogura; Hiroko Terasaki; Tetsuro Oshika; Kyung Bo Kim; David R Hinton; Norbert Leitinger; John C Cambier; Joseph D Buxbaum; M Cristina Kenney; S Michal Jazwinski; Hiroshi Nagai; Isao Hara; A Phillip West; Katherine A Fitzgerald; SriniVas R Sadda; Bradley D Gelfand; Jayakrishna Ambati Journal: Nat Med Date: 2017-11-27 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: Juan P Vigueras-Guillén; Jeroen van Rooij; Angela Engel; Hans G Lemij; Lucas J van Vliet; Koenraad A Vermeer Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2020-08-21 Impact factor: 3.283
Authors: Juan P Vigueras-Guillén; Jeroen van Rooij; Bart T H van Dooren; Hans G Lemij; Esma Islamaj; Lucas J van Vliet; Koenraad A Vermeer Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-08-18 Impact factor: 4.996
Authors: María Isabel Soro-Martínez; Juan Antonio Miralles de Imperial-Ollero; Miriam Pastor-Montoro; Gabriel Arcos-Villegas; Paloma Sobrado-Calvo; José María Ruiz-Gómez; Jaime Miralles de Imperial-Mora-Figueroa; María Paz Villegas-Pérez Journal: Eye (Lond) Date: 2021-01-07 Impact factor: 3.775