Evaluation of the corneal endothelium using noncontact and contact specular microscopy

Eszter Szalai, Gábor Németh, A. Berta, L. Módis

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

12 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

PURPOSE:: To determine the difference between the endothelial cell density (ECD) and the morphologic measurements assessed with a recently developed noncontact specular microscope compared with a contact endothelial microscope. The agreement between the 2 independent operators was also investigated. METHODS:: The central corneal endothelium was examined in the right eyes of 41 healthy individuals using automated image analysis programs without correction for a noncontact specular microscope and a contact specular microscope (EM-3000, EM-1000; Tomey, Tennenlohe, Germany). The evaluated parameters such as ECD, average cell area (AVG), and coefficient of variation of the cell area were determined by 2 operators. Conversion factors were also considered to adjust the ECD values. RESULTS:: ECD measurements obtained with the noncontact instrument (2734 ± 287 cells per square millimeter, first operator; 2726 ± 282 cells per square millimeter, second operator) were significantly higher (P <0.0001) in comparison with the contact microscope (2283 ± 206 cells per square millimeter, first operator; 2274 ± 242 cells per square millimeter, second operator) by both investigators. The contact specular microscope significantly overestimated (P <0.0001) AVG and coefficient of variation of the cell area values. Statistically significant correlation (P <0.0001) was detected in ECD (r = 0.77, first operator) and AVG measurements (r = 0.72, first operator) between the 2 endothelial microscopes. Higher degree of agreement between operators was given when using the noncontact specular microscope compared with the contact instrument. CONCLUSIONS:: The significant differences and the poor agreement between the automated software options disclosed that the 2 instruments cannot be used interchangeably.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)567-570
Number of pages4
JournalCornea
Volume30
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - May 2011

Fingerprint

Corneal Endothelium
Microscopy
Endothelial Cells
Cell Count
Germany
Software
Research Personnel

Keywords

  • agreement
  • corneal endothelium
  • specular microscopy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ophthalmology

Cite this

Evaluation of the corneal endothelium using noncontact and contact specular microscopy. / Szalai, Eszter; Németh, Gábor; Berta, A.; Módis, L.

In: Cornea, Vol. 30, No. 5, 05.2011, p. 567-570.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Szalai, Eszter ; Németh, Gábor ; Berta, A. ; Módis, L. / Evaluation of the corneal endothelium using noncontact and contact specular microscopy. In: Cornea. 2011 ; Vol. 30, No. 5. pp. 567-570.
@article{412d31f35c0d4f968ba64dd272dae2d7,
title = "Evaluation of the corneal endothelium using noncontact and contact specular microscopy",
abstract = "PURPOSE:: To determine the difference between the endothelial cell density (ECD) and the morphologic measurements assessed with a recently developed noncontact specular microscope compared with a contact endothelial microscope. The agreement between the 2 independent operators was also investigated. METHODS:: The central corneal endothelium was examined in the right eyes of 41 healthy individuals using automated image analysis programs without correction for a noncontact specular microscope and a contact specular microscope (EM-3000, EM-1000; Tomey, Tennenlohe, Germany). The evaluated parameters such as ECD, average cell area (AVG), and coefficient of variation of the cell area were determined by 2 operators. Conversion factors were also considered to adjust the ECD values. RESULTS:: ECD measurements obtained with the noncontact instrument (2734 ± 287 cells per square millimeter, first operator; 2726 ± 282 cells per square millimeter, second operator) were significantly higher (P <0.0001) in comparison with the contact microscope (2283 ± 206 cells per square millimeter, first operator; 2274 ± 242 cells per square millimeter, second operator) by both investigators. The contact specular microscope significantly overestimated (P <0.0001) AVG and coefficient of variation of the cell area values. Statistically significant correlation (P <0.0001) was detected in ECD (r = 0.77, first operator) and AVG measurements (r = 0.72, first operator) between the 2 endothelial microscopes. Higher degree of agreement between operators was given when using the noncontact specular microscope compared with the contact instrument. CONCLUSIONS:: The significant differences and the poor agreement between the automated software options disclosed that the 2 instruments cannot be used interchangeably.",
keywords = "agreement, corneal endothelium, specular microscopy",
author = "Eszter Szalai and G{\'a}bor N{\'e}meth and A. Berta and L. M{\'o}dis",
year = "2011",
month = "5",
doi = "10.1097/ICO.0b013e3182000807",
language = "English",
volume = "30",
pages = "567--570",
journal = "Cornea",
issn = "0277-3740",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evaluation of the corneal endothelium using noncontact and contact specular microscopy

AU - Szalai, Eszter

AU - Németh, Gábor

AU - Berta, A.

AU - Módis, L.

PY - 2011/5

Y1 - 2011/5

N2 - PURPOSE:: To determine the difference between the endothelial cell density (ECD) and the morphologic measurements assessed with a recently developed noncontact specular microscope compared with a contact endothelial microscope. The agreement between the 2 independent operators was also investigated. METHODS:: The central corneal endothelium was examined in the right eyes of 41 healthy individuals using automated image analysis programs without correction for a noncontact specular microscope and a contact specular microscope (EM-3000, EM-1000; Tomey, Tennenlohe, Germany). The evaluated parameters such as ECD, average cell area (AVG), and coefficient of variation of the cell area were determined by 2 operators. Conversion factors were also considered to adjust the ECD values. RESULTS:: ECD measurements obtained with the noncontact instrument (2734 ± 287 cells per square millimeter, first operator; 2726 ± 282 cells per square millimeter, second operator) were significantly higher (P <0.0001) in comparison with the contact microscope (2283 ± 206 cells per square millimeter, first operator; 2274 ± 242 cells per square millimeter, second operator) by both investigators. The contact specular microscope significantly overestimated (P <0.0001) AVG and coefficient of variation of the cell area values. Statistically significant correlation (P <0.0001) was detected in ECD (r = 0.77, first operator) and AVG measurements (r = 0.72, first operator) between the 2 endothelial microscopes. Higher degree of agreement between operators was given when using the noncontact specular microscope compared with the contact instrument. CONCLUSIONS:: The significant differences and the poor agreement between the automated software options disclosed that the 2 instruments cannot be used interchangeably.

AB - PURPOSE:: To determine the difference between the endothelial cell density (ECD) and the morphologic measurements assessed with a recently developed noncontact specular microscope compared with a contact endothelial microscope. The agreement between the 2 independent operators was also investigated. METHODS:: The central corneal endothelium was examined in the right eyes of 41 healthy individuals using automated image analysis programs without correction for a noncontact specular microscope and a contact specular microscope (EM-3000, EM-1000; Tomey, Tennenlohe, Germany). The evaluated parameters such as ECD, average cell area (AVG), and coefficient of variation of the cell area were determined by 2 operators. Conversion factors were also considered to adjust the ECD values. RESULTS:: ECD measurements obtained with the noncontact instrument (2734 ± 287 cells per square millimeter, first operator; 2726 ± 282 cells per square millimeter, second operator) were significantly higher (P <0.0001) in comparison with the contact microscope (2283 ± 206 cells per square millimeter, first operator; 2274 ± 242 cells per square millimeter, second operator) by both investigators. The contact specular microscope significantly overestimated (P <0.0001) AVG and coefficient of variation of the cell area values. Statistically significant correlation (P <0.0001) was detected in ECD (r = 0.77, first operator) and AVG measurements (r = 0.72, first operator) between the 2 endothelial microscopes. Higher degree of agreement between operators was given when using the noncontact specular microscope compared with the contact instrument. CONCLUSIONS:: The significant differences and the poor agreement between the automated software options disclosed that the 2 instruments cannot be used interchangeably.

KW - agreement

KW - corneal endothelium

KW - specular microscopy

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79955052782&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79955052782&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/ICO.0b013e3182000807

DO - 10.1097/ICO.0b013e3182000807

M3 - Article

C2 - 21598434

AN - SCOPUS:79955052782

VL - 30

SP - 567

EP - 570

JO - Cornea

JF - Cornea

SN - 0277-3740

IS - 5

ER -