Irmak Karaca1, Suzan Guven Yilmaz1, Melis Palamar2, Halil Ates1. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, Ege University Faculty of Medicine, Ege University School of Medicine, 35040 Bornova, Izmir, Turkey. 2. Department of Ophthalmology, Ege University Faculty of Medicine, Ege University School of Medicine, 35040 Bornova, Izmir, Turkey. melispalamar@hotmail.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the correlation of Scheimpflug camera system and two noncontact specular microscopes in terms of central corneal thickness (CCT) and corneal endothelial cell morphology measurements. METHODS: One hundred eyes of 50 healthy subjects were examined by Pentacam Scheimpflug Analyzer, CEM-530 (Nidek Co, Ltd, Gamagori, Japan) and CellChek XL (Konan Medical, California, USA) via fully automated image analysis with no corrections made. Measurement differences and agreement between instruments were determined by intraclass correlation analysis. RESULTS: The mean age of the subjects was 36.74 ± 8.59 (range 22-57). CCTs were well correlated among all devices, with having CEM-530 the thinnest and CellChek XL the thickest measurements (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) = 0.83; p < 0.001 and ICC = 0.78; p < 0.001, respectively). Mean endothelial cell density (ECD) given by CEM-530 was lower than CellChek XL (2613.17 ± 228.62 and 2862.72 ± 170.42 cells/mm2, respectively; ICC = 0.43; p < 0.001). Mean value for coefficient of variation (CV) was 28.57 ± 3.61 in CEM-530 and 30.30 ± 3.53 in CellChek XL. Cell hexagonality (HEX) with CEM-530 was higher than with CellChek XL (68.70 ± 4.16% and 45.19 ± 6.58%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: ECDs with CellChek XL and CEM-530 have good correlation, but the values obtained by CellChek XL are higher than CEM-530. Measurements for HEX and CV differ significantly and show weak correlation. Thus, we do not recommend interchangeable use of CellChek XL and CEM-530. In terms of CCTs, Pentacam, CEM-530 and CellChek XL specular microscopy instruments are reliable devices.
PURPOSE: To investigate the correlation of Scheimpflug camera system and two noncontact specular microscopes in terms of central corneal thickness (CCT) and corneal endothelial cell morphology measurements. METHODS: One hundred eyes of 50 healthy subjects were examined by Pentacam Scheimpflug Analyzer, CEM-530 (Nidek Co, Ltd, Gamagori, Japan) and CellChek XL (Konan Medical, California, USA) via fully automated image analysis with no corrections made. Measurement differences and agreement between instruments were determined by intraclass correlation analysis. RESULTS: The mean age of the subjects was 36.74 ± 8.59 (range 22-57). CCTs were well correlated among all devices, with having CEM-530 the thinnest and CellChek XL the thickest measurements (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) = 0.83; p < 0.001 and ICC = 0.78; p < 0.001, respectively). Mean endothelial cell density (ECD) given by CEM-530 was lower than CellChek XL (2613.17 ± 228.62 and 2862.72 ± 170.42 cells/mm2, respectively; ICC = 0.43; p < 0.001). Mean value for coefficient of variation (CV) was 28.57 ± 3.61 in CEM-530 and 30.30 ± 3.53 in CellChek XL. Cell hexagonality (HEX) with CEM-530 was higher than with CellChek XL (68.70 ± 4.16% and 45.19 ± 6.58%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: ECDs with CellChek XL and CEM-530 have good correlation, but the values obtained by CellChek XL are higher than CEM-530. Measurements for HEX and CV differ significantly and show weak correlation. Thus, we do not recommend interchangeable use of CellChek XL and CEM-530. In terms of CCTs, Pentacam, CEM-530 and CellChek XL specular microscopy instruments are reliable devices.
Entities:
Keywords:
Central corneal thickness; Endothelial cell parameters; Pentacam; Specular microscope
Authors: Agnes I Takács; Illés Kovács; Kata Miháltz; Tamás Filkorn; Michael C Knorz; Zoltán Z Nagy Journal: J Refract Surg Date: 2012-05-16 Impact factor: 3.573
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