Assessment of a variable frame (polygonal) method to estimate corneal endothelial cell counts after corneal transplantation

Eye (Basingstoke)

Volumn 26, Issue 6, 2012, Pages 803-809

  Jonuscheit, S ^a,b   Doughty, M J ^a   Ramaesh, K ^b  

^a GARTNAVEL GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^b GLASGOW CALEDONIAN UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

cell density; cornea; endothelium; keratoplasty; planimetry; variable frame

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CELL COUNT; CELL DENSITY; CONFOCAL MICROSCOPY; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORNEA ENDOTHELIUM; CORNEA TRANSPLANTATION; ENDOTHELIUM CELL; FIXED FRAME METHOD; HUMAN; INFORMATION SYSTEM; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; KERATOPLASTY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; POLYGONAL VARIABLE FRAME METHOD;

EID: 84862499876     PISSN: 0950222X     EISSN: 14765454     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/eye.2012.42     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Doughty MJ. Toward a quantitative analysis of corneal endothelial cell morphology: a review of techniques and their application. Optom Vis Sci 1989; 66(9): 626-642. (Pubitemid 19237711)
2. Jonuscheit S, Doughty MJ, Ramaesh K. In vivo confocal microscopy of the corneal endothelium: comparison of three morphometry methods after corneal transplantation. Eye (Lond) 2011; 25(9): 1130-1137.
3. McCarey BE, Edelhauser HF, Lynn MJ. Review of corneal endothelial specular microscopy for FDA clinical trials of refractive procedures, surgical devices, and new intraocular drugs and solutions. Cornea 2008; 27(1): 1-16.
4. Benetz BA, Diaconu E, Bowlin SJ, Oak SS, Laing RA, Lass JH. Comparison of corneal endothelial image analysis by Konan SP8000 non contact and Bio-Optics Bambi systems. Cornea 1999; 18(1): 67-72. (Pubitemid 29014008)
5. Patel SV, McLaren JW, Bachman LA, Bourne WM. Comparison of flex-center, center, and corner methods of corneal endothelial cell analysis. Cornea 2010; 29(9): 1042-1047.
6. Deb-Joardar N, Thuret G, Zhao M, Acquart S, Péoc'h M, Garraud O et al. Comparison of two semi-automated methods for evaluating endothelial cells of eye bank corneas. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2007; 48(7): 3077-3082. (Pubitemid 351261151)
7. Salvetat ML, Zeppieri M, Miani F, Parisi L, Felletti M, Brusini P. Comparison between laser scanning in vivo confocal microscopy and non contact specular microscopy in assessing corneal endothelial cell density and central corneal thickness. Cornea 2011; 30(7): 754-759.
8. Modis Jr L, Langenbucher A, Seitz B. Corneal endothelial cell density and pachymetry measured by contact and non contact specular microscopy. J Cataract Refract Surg 2002; 28(10): 1763-1769. (Pubitemid 35204629)
9. Szalai E, Nemeth G, Berta A, Modis Jr L. Evaluation of the corneal endothelium using non contact and contact specular microscopy. Cornea 2011; 30(5): 567-570.
10. Rieth S, Engel F, Buhner E, Uhlmann S, Wiedemann P, Foja C. Comparison of data from the rostock cornea module of the heidelberg retina tomograph, the oculus pentacam, and the endothelial cell microscope. Cornea 2010; 29(3): 314-320.
11. Patel HY, Patel DV, McGhee CN. Identifying relationships between tomography-derived corneal thickness, curvature, and diameter and in vivo confocal microscopic assessment of the endothelium in healthy corneas of young adults. Eye (Lond) 2009; 23(2): 270-278.
12. Imre L, Nagymihaly A. Reliability and reproducibility of corneal endothelial image analysis by in vivo confocal microscopy. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2001; 239(5): 356-360. (Pubitemid 32600192)
13. Klais CM, Buhren J, Kohnen T. Comparison of endothelial cell count using confocal and contact specular microscopy. Ophthalmologica 2003; 217(2): 99-103. (Pubitemid 36237703)
14. Raecker ME, McLaren JW, Kittleson KM, Patel SV. Endothelial image quality after descemet stripping with endothelial keratoplasty: a comparison of three microscopy techniques. Eye Contact Lens 2011; 37(1): 6-10.
15. Sheng H, Parker EJ, Bullimore MA. An evaluation of the ConfoScan3 for corneal endothelial morphology analysis. Optom Vis Sci 2007; 84(9): 888-895. (Pubitemid 47415164)
16. Kitzmann AS, Winter EJ, Nau CB, McLaren JW, Hodge DO, Bourne WM. Comparison of corneal endothelial cell images from a non contact specular microscope and a scanning confocal microscope. Cornea 2005; 24(8): 980-984. (Pubitemid 41688535)
17. Doughty MJ, Jonuscheit S, Button NF. Assessment of the reliability of endothelial cell-density estimates in the presence of pseudoguttata. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2012; 250(1): 111-121.
18. Okubo A, Inoda S, Ohara K. Effects of anterior segment inflammation on the corneal endothelium. Morphometric study with panoramic photography and cell shape analysis. Nihon Ganka Gakkai Zasshi 1983; 87(11): 1233-1241.
19. Giasson CJ, Solomon LD, Polse KA. Morphometry of corneal endothelium in patients with corneal guttata. Ophthalmology 2007; 114(8): 1469-1475. (Pubitemid 47126586)
20. Benetz BA, Gal RL, Ruedy KJ, Rice C, Beck RW, Kalajian AD et al. Specular microscopy ancillary study methods for donor endothelial cell density determination of Cornea Donor Study images. Curr Eye Res 2006; 31(4): 319-327.
21. Bland JM, Altman DG. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res 1999; 8(2): 135-160. (Pubitemid 29425900)