Endothelial image quality after descemet stripping with endothelial keratoplasty: A comparison of three microscopy techniques

Eye and Contact Lens

Volumn 37, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 6-10

  Raecker, Matthew E ^a   McLaren, Jay W ^a   Kittleson, Katrina M ^a   Patel, Sanjay V ^a  

^a MAYO CLINIC   (United States)

Author keywords

Confocal microscopy; DSEK; Endothelium; Image quality; Specular microscopy

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CELL DENSITY; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONFOCAL MICROSCOPY; CONGENITAL CORNEA DYSTROPHY; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORNEA; CORNEA EDEMA; CORNEA ENDOTHELIUM; DESCEMET STRIPPING ENDOTHELIAL KERATOPLASTY; ENDOTHELIUM CELL; HUMAN; HUMAN CELL; HUMAN TISSUE; IMAGE QUALITY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SPECULAR MICROSCOPY;

CELL COUNT; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; DESCEMET STRIPPING ENDOTHELIAL KERATOPLASTY; ENDOTHELIUM, CORNEAL; HUMANS; INFANT; INFANT, NEWBORN; MICROSCOPY; MICROSCOPY, CONFOCAL; POSTOPERATIVE PERIOD;

EID: 78650827499     PISSN: 15422321     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/ICL.0b013e318203dc19     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Patel SV. Keratoplasty for endothelial dysfunction. Ophthalmology 2007; 114:627-628.
2. Ahmed KA, McLaren JW, Baratz KH, et al. Host and graft thickness after Descemet stripping endothelial keratoplasty for Fuchs endothelial dystrophy. Am J Ophthalmol 2010;150:490-497.
3. Patel SV, Baratz KH, Hodge DO, et al. The effect of corneal light scatter on vision after Descemet stripping with endothelial keratoplasty. Arch Ophthalmol 2009;127:153-160.
4. Benetz BA, Gal RL, Ruedy KJ, et al. Specular microscopy ancillary study methods for donor endothelial cell density determination of cornea donor study images. Curr Eye Res 2006;31:319-327.
5. Lass JH, Gal RL, Ruedy KJ, et al. An evaluation of image quality and accuracy of eye bank measurement of donor cornea endothelial cell density in the specular microscopy ancillary study [erratum appears in Ophthalmology 2005;112:1394]. Ophthalmology 2005;112:431-440.
6. Erie JC,McLaren JW, Patel SV. Confocal microscopy in ophthalmology. Am J Ophthalmol 2009;148:639-646.
7. Kitzmann AS, Winter EJ, Nau CB, et al. Comparison of corneal endothelial cell images from a noncontact specular microscope and a scanning confocal microscope. Cornea 2005;24:980-984.
8. Zeger SL, Liang KY. Longitudinal data analysis for discrete and continuous outcomes. Biometrics 1986;42:121-130.
9. Patel SV, McLaren JW, Hodge DO, et al. Scattered light and visual function in a randomized trial of deep lamellar endothelial keratoplasty and penetrating keratoplasty. Am J Ophthalmol 2008;145:97-105.
10. Patel SV, McLaren JW, Bachman LA, et al. Comparison of flex-center, center, and corner methods of corneal endothelial cell analysis. Cornea 2010; 29:1042-1047.
11. Ohno K, Nelson LR, McLaren JW, et al. Comparison of recording systems and analysis methods in specular microscopy. Cornea 1999;18:416-423.
12. Patel SV, Diehl NN, Hodge DO, et al. Donor risk factors for graft failure in a 20-year study of penetrating keratoplasty. Arch Ophthalmol 2010;128: 418-425.
13. McLaren JW, Bourne WM, Patel SV. Standardization of corneal haze measurement in confocal microscopy. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2010;51: 5610-5616.